# Walter Booker v. Harold Clarke

> Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · April 30, 2014 · 569 F. App'x 165

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2671884

## Case

- **Full name:** Quintin Irving BROWN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- **Decided:** April 30, 2014
- **Citations:** 569 F. App'x 165
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Niemeyer, Shedd, Floyd
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2671884

## Opinion text

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6454

WALTER D. BOOKER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of VA DOC,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01478-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted: April 24, 2014 Decided: April 30, 2014

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter D. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Walter D. Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 (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 Booker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny the motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal because the facts and legal contentions are

2
adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2671884. Public record. Not legal advice.