Jeffrey Pleasant v. Harold Clarke, No. 14-7835 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7835 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-7847 JEFFREY A. PLEASANT, Petitioner - Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Respondents - Appellees. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00144-REP-RCY; 3:14-cv-00266-REP-RCY) Submitted: April 23, 2015 Decided: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. April 28, 2015 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” See showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). of a 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 that have Pleasant appeal. in independently has made the the records requisite and showing conclude in either Accordingly, we deny Pleasant’s applications to proceed forma pauperis, dismiss the appeals. facts not reviewed and legal deny certificates of appealability, and We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are 3 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
