William A. Timmons, Jr. v. Harold Clarke , 712 F. App'x 318 ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-7325
    WILLIAM A. TIMMONS, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
    Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00917-LMB-MSN)
    Submitted: February 22, 2018                                 Decided: February 27, 2018
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    William A. Timmons, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    William A. Timmons, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) petition as a successive petition filed without authorization. The
    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
    appealability. 
    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 Timmons has not
    made the requisite showing.      Accordingly, we deny his 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 contentions are adequately
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-7325

Citation Numbers: 712 F. App'x 318

Filed Date: 2/27/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 1/13/2023