Troy Ketchmore v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7823 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7823 TROY LAMONT KETCHMORE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia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. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00515-RBS-DEM) Submitted: January 22, 2013 Decided: January 25, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Troy Lamont Ketchmore, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Troy Lamont Ketchmore seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as an unauthorized, appealable successive unless a petition. circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The or order judge is issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Ketchmore does not challenge the basis for the district court s disposition, he has forfeited appellate review of the court s order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 2 deny as moot the motions for bail pending appeal, 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 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.