Conrad Burke v. Harold Clarke, No. 12-7941 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7941 CONRAD A. BURKE, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, VA. Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cv-00324-LMB-TCB) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Conrad Burke, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Conrad Burke seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 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 Burke has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Burke s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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