Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Michael Townsend, Sr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Townsend's appeal of the district court's ruling. The district court had dismissed Townsend's habeas corpus petition as successive. The appellate court denies Townsend's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing his petition as successive was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable constitutional claim. The appellate court therefore dismisses Townsend's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-02-26 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 13-7764

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Townsend's appeal of the district court's ruling. The district court had dismissed Townsend's habeas corpus petition as successive. The appellate court denies Townsend's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing his petition as successive was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable constitutional claim. The appellate court therefore dismisses Townsend's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    2 views3 pages

    Michael Townsend, Sr. v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is a court order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Michael Townsend's appeal of the district court's ruling. The district court had dismissed Townsend's habeas corpus petition as successive. The appellate court denies Townsend's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make the requisite showing that the district court's procedural ruling dismissing his petition as successive was debatable or that his petition stated a debatable constitutional claim. The appellate court therefore dismisses Townsend's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 13-7764

    MICHAEL LEE TOWNSEND, SR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD CLARKE,
    Respondent Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Liam OGrady, District
    Judge. (1:13-cv-01240-LO-TCB)

    Submitted:

    February 20, 2014

    Decided:

    February 26, 2014

    Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Michael Lee Townsend, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Micheal

    Lee

    Townsend,

    Sr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district courts order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.


    2254 (2012) 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)

    (2012).

    certificate

    of

    appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of


    the denial of a constitutional right.
    (2012).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2)

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    both

    on

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    ruling

    must
    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 Townsend 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

    You might also like