From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Daniels v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 13, 2016
645 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir. 2016)

Opinion

No. 15-7741

04-13-2016

ANDRE LAMAR DANIELS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee.

Andre Lamar Daniels, Appellant Pro Se.


UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:13-cv-01325-AJT-IDD) Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Lamar Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Andre Lamar Daniels seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and the court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 Daniels 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


Summaries of

Daniels v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Apr 13, 2016
645 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir. 2016)
Case details for

Daniels v. Dir. of the Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:ANDRE LAMAR DANIELS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Apr 13, 2016

Citations

645 F. App'x 239 (4th Cir. 2016)