Harry Nie v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-6704 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6704 HARRY NIE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Corrections, Director, Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:11-cv-00666-RBS-DEM) Submitted: September 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2014 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harry Nie, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harry Nie seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motions seeking reconsideration of the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. He also appeals from the district court s denial of his motions to transfer the case and to take judicial notice. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 debatable or assessment wrong. Slack of the constitutional v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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 Nie has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny Nie s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion to take judicial notice of facts, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and materials We dispense with legal contentions are before this and court 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.
