Filed: Jun. 20, 2019
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6795 JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 18-7285 JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 18-6795 JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 18-7285 JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6795
JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 18-7285
JOWARSKI RUSSELL NEDD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:16-cv-00948-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: May 29, 2019 Decided: June 20, 2019
Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jowarski Russell Nedd, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 18-6795, Jowarski Russell Nedd seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. * In Appeal No. 18-
7285, Nedd seeks to appeal the district court’s subsequent order denying reconsideration.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 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 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 remanded for the limited purpose of permitting the district court to determine
whether Nedd is entitled to a reopening of the appeal period pursuant to Fed. R. App. P.
4(a)(6). On remand, the district court granted Nedd’s motion to reopen.
3
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nedd has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeals. 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
4