Michael Wease v. Commonwealth Director of DOC, No. 13-6919 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6919 MICHAEL C. WEASE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH DIRECTOR OF DOC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00166-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 27, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael Charles Wease, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael C. Wease seeks to appeal the district court s order treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as successive and unauthorized and dismissing it on that basis, and he has filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis. district justice court s or order issues judge is a not appealable certificate of unless a The circuit appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). issue absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 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 Wease has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Wease s application to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a 2 certificate dispense of with contentions are appealability oral argument adequately and dismiss because presented in the the the appeal. facts We and legal 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.
