Opinion
No. 19-6674
10-21-2019
DEVINCHE JAVON ALBRITTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
DeVinche Albritton, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00737-AWA-LRL) Before MOTZ and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. DeVinche Albritton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
DeVinche Javon Albritton, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying various postjudgment motions filed in Albritton's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding. 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.
Because Albritton filed numerous postjudgment motions in his federal habeas proceeding, which the district court resolved in various orders, we note that the subject order was entered on April 24, 2019. --------
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Albritton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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