Rodney Braxton v. Harold Clarke , 630 F. App'x 211 ( 2016 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7558
RODNEY ONEAL BRAXTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:15-cv-01128-JCC-TCB)
Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 20, 2016
Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rodney Oneal Braxton, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodney Oneal Braxton seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
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) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Braxton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Braxton’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3