Opinion
No. 13-6569
2013-10-08
JASON PATILLO, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee.
Jason Patillo, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:12-cv-00261-REP) Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Patillo, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Jason Patillo seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Patillo has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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. Leave to amend the habeas corpus petition is denied.
DISMISSED