Al-tarik Sumner v. Harold Clark
Al-tarik Sumner v. Harold Clark
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6994
AL-TARIK SUMNER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARK, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:13-cv-00165-AWA-TEM)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: September 30, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Al-tarik Sumner, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Al-tarik Sumner seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice to his right to proceed in the Virginia state courts.
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 Sumner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.