James Mann v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7226 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7226 JAMES GARLAND MANN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:11-cv-00711-REP) Submitted: December 19, 2012 Decided: January 31, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT LAW, PLC, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellant. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s order petition. Garland denying Mann relief seeks on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue district absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Mann has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
