Angel Chirinos-Escala v. Harold Clarke, No. 13-7847 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7847 ANGEL ALFONSO CHIRINOS-ESCALA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Virginia Department of Corrections, 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-00716-AJT-TRJ) Submitted: March 11, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Angel Alfonso Chirinos-Escala, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Angel Alfonso Chirinos-Escala 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 issues or judge a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Chirinos-Escala has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed dispense in with forma pauperis, oral argument and dismiss because 2 the the appeal. 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.
