James Clark v. Director of the Department of, No. 10-7375 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7375 JAMES FERLON CLARK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00006-gec-mfu) Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 18, 2011 Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James Ferlon Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James court s order petition. Ferlon denying Clark 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) (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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Clark s motion for a transcript of his preliminary hearing as well as his Motion to Excuse Procedural Default, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 before the 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.
