Jeffrey Pleasant v. Harold Clarke

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7258

JEFFREY A. PLEASANT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:14-cv-00783-REP-RCY)

Submitted: January 19, 2016 Decided: February 5, 2016

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 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 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

2
assertions in this case. 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