Lorenza Ferebee, Jr. v. Harold Clarke ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6063
    LORENZA GERALD FEREBEE, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE, Virginia Department of Corrections Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, Senior District Judge. (1:19-cv-01483-LO-TCB)
    Submitted: August 19, 2021                                        Decided: August 24, 2021
    Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Lorenza Gerald Ferebee, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not
    appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2). When, as here,
    the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both
    that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable
    claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41
    (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ferebee has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
    appeal. * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
    adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    The district court alternatively found that the petition was untimely. Because we
    agree with the district court that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Ferebee’s successive,
    unauthorized petition, we do not address the timeliness determination.
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6063

Filed Date: 8/24/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/24/2021