Leroy Kelly v. Harold Clarke

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Leroy Kelly v. Harold Clarke

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6473

LEROY J. KELLY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the VA Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:19-cv-00212-REP-RCY)

Submitted: February 18, 2021 Decided: February 22, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Joseph Kelly, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Leroy Joseph Kelly seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis,

137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74

(2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Kelly 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

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished