Jeffrey Washington v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6335 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6335 JEFFREY FRANKLIN WASHINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District Judge. (7:13-cv-00526-MFU-RSB) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: June 30, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Franklin Washington, Appellant Pro Se. Harris, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Appellee. Susan Mozley Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Franklin Washington seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Washington Accordingly, counsel and we has deny for not made Washington s Humanitarian the motions requisite for Electronic showing. appointment Ankle of Bracelet Parole-Type Release, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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.