Clarence Roulhac, Jr. v. Jeffrey Dillman, No. 14-6795 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6795 CLARENCE ROULHAC, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. JEFFREY N. DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:14-cv-00211-HEH-MHL) Submitted: July 24, 2014 Before FLOYD and Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit Judges, and July 29, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Clarence Roulhac, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Clarence Roulhac, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order U.S.C. § 2254 unless a dismissing (2012) circuit appealability. as unauthorized petition. justice or The judge his successive order is not issues a certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 28 appealable of 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 the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must 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 Roulhac has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
