Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Brandon Lucas v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Brandon Lucas's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Lucas failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lucas did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling or assessment of his constitutional claims were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-06-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-6021

    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 Brandon Lucas's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Lucas failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lucas did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling or assessment of his constitutional claims were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Brandon Lucas v. Harold Clarke, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Brandon Lucas's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition as untimely. The court declined to issue a certificate of appealability, finding that Lucas failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lucas did not demonstrate that the district court's procedural ruling or assessment of his constitutional claims were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court 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. 14-6021

    BRANDON M. LUCAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.
    James R. Spencer, District
    Judge. (3:13-cv-00176-JRS)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2014

    Decided:

    June 2, 2014

    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia,


    for Appellant. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Brandon M. Lucas seeks to appeal the district courts
    order

    dismissing

    petition.
    or

    judge

    as

    untimely

    28

    U.S.C.

    2254

    (2012)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice


    issues

    certificate

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

    his

    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 Lucas 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