Filed: Feb. 07, 2012
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7274 METKEL ALANA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per c
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-7274 METKEL ALANA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per cu..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7274
METKEL ALANA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-00564-RAJ-TEM)
Submitted: January 20, 2012 Decided: February 7, 2012
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Metkel Alana, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Misbach, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Metkel Alana seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(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. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Alana 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3