Albert Perry, Jr. v. Commonwealth of Virginia, No. 13-7396 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7396 ALBERT LEWIS PERRY, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; MARK RANKIN HERRING, Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections; MARIE M. VARGO, Warden of Sussex II State Prison, Waverly, Virginia, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:13-cv-00327-HEH) Submitted: February 28, 2014 Decided: March 6, 2014 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael March Brownlee, Patrick Michael Megaro, BROWNSTONE LAW FIRM, PA, Winter Park, Florida, for Appellant. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Albert Lewis Perry, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order petition. denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue § 2254 absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. 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 Perry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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
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.
