Leonard Victory v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-6898 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6898 LEONARD LEVERNE VICTORY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00572-AJT-IDD) Submitted: July 9, 2013 Decided: July 18, 2013 Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leonard L. Victory, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leonard Leverne Victory seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as impermissibly successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Victory has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Victory s motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. facts and legal We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 2 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.