Pete Kochel v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-6409 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6409 PETE ALLEN KOCHEL, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Douglas E. Miller, Magistrate Judge. (2:12-cv-00420-DEM) Submitted: June 13, 2013 Decided: June 18, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Pete Allen Kochel, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Pete Allen Kochel seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing petition. * or judge as his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue untimely absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of 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 Kochel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in * By consent of the parties and designation of the district court, all proceedings were conducted before a magistrate judge. 2 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 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.
