Nicholas Baker v. Harold Clarke

Fourth Circuit

Nicholas Baker v. Harold Clarke

632 F. App'x 139

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 5, 2016

Docket15-7405

StatusUnpublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 632 F. App'x 139 (Nicholas Baker v. Harold Clarke) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Nicholas Baker v. Harold Clarke, 632 F. App'x 139 (4th Cir. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a *140 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Pleasant is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Chesterfield County, Virginia; he is not being detained pending a City of Richmond charge dating back to 2000, contrary to his assertions in this case. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a *140 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Pleasant is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the Circuit Court for Chesterfield County, Virginia; he is not being detained pending a City of Richmond charge dating back to 2000, contrary to his assertions in this case. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

632 F. App'x 139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/nicholas-baker-v-harold-clarke-ca4-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack