UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7835
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 14-7847
JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00144-REP-RCY; 3:14-cv-00266-REP-RCY)
Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: April 28, 2015
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 have independently reviewed the records and conclude
that Pleasant has not made the requisite showing in either
appeal. Accordingly, we deny Pleasant’s applications to proceed
in forma pauperis, deny certificates of appealability, and
dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
3
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
4