Tavon Pauley v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6650 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6650 TAVON L. PAULEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR HAROLD Corrections, W. CLARKE, Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00714-LMB-TCB) Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 23, 2014 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tavon L. Pauley, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tavon L. Pauley seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his Motion to Correct Judicial Error, Oversight, and Clerical Error and his Petition for Writ of Liberating Exigenis in Itinere, filed in his habeas proceedings after his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition was dismissed as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). See 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 Pauley has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. * dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED * To the extent Pauley seeks to appeal the district court s orders dismissing his § 2254 petition and his first motion to correct judicial error, oversight, and clerical error, we dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Pauley s notice of appeal was not timely filed as to those orders. 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.
