Walter Booker v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-6454 (4th Cir. 2014)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6454 WALTER D. BOOKER, Petitioner Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of VA DOC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:12-cv-01478-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 30, 2014 Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Walter D. Booker seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Booker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 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.