Supreme King Allah v. Harold Clarke, No. 15-7159 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7159 SUPREME KING JUSTICE ALLAH, f/k/a Albert Curtis Williams, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:14-cv-00489-RGD-TEM) Submitted: November 20, 2015 Decided: December 29, 2015 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Supreme King Justice Allah, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Supreme King Justice Allah seeks to appeal the district court’s judge order and dismissing petition. or judge accepting his issues absent a prisoner successive certificate “a 28 of the U.S.C. § magistrate 2254 (2012) the appealability. 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). district court satisfies this jurists would reasonable of A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” When recommendation The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue the denies relief standard find by that on the merits, demonstrating the district a 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 on both procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural must 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 Allah has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately 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.
