Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Linwood Sawyer v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linwood Bernard Sawyer's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Sawyer did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied Sawyer's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-09-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6579

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linwood Bernard Sawyer's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Sawyer did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied Sawyer's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Linwood Sawyer v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Linwood Bernard Sawyer's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Sawyer did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court denied Sawyer's request for a certificate of appealability, denied leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-6579

    LINWOOD BERNARD SAWYER,


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

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    T. S. Ellis III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:13-cv-00749-TSE-TCB)

    Submitted:

    September 23, 2014

    Before NIEMEYER and


    Senior Circuit Judge.

    GREGORY,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    September 25, 2014

    Judges,

    and

    HAMILTON,

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Linwood Bernard Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se.


    Alice Theresa
    Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
    Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Linwood Bernard Sawyer seeks to appeal the district
    courts

    order

    petition.
    or

    judge

    denying

    on

    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    2254

    (2012)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice


    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
    issue

    relief

    absent

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    of

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    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 Sawyer 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