From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Sample v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 26, 2013
547 F. App'x 240 (4th Cir. 2013)

Opinion

No. 13-7218

11-26-2013

DARYL LAMONTE SAMPLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.

Daryl Lamonte Sample, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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UNPUBLISHED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 Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00372-CMH-TRJ) Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daryl Lamonte Sample, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Daryl Lamont Sample 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. 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 Sample 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

Sample v. Clarke

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Nov 26, 2013
547 F. App'x 240 (4th Cir. 2013)
Case details for

Sample v. Clarke

Case Details

Full title:DARYL LAMONTE SAMPLE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Nov 26, 2013

Citations

547 F. App'x 240 (4th Cir. 2013)