Terrence Javon Allen, Sr. v. HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7577
TERRENCE JAVON ALLEN, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
LAUREN C. CAMPBELL, Mrs.; MARK MCKINNEY, Mr., Ass. Commonwealth
Attorney,
Respondents.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:17-cv-00190-AJT-IDD)
Submitted: May 31, 2018 Decided: June 1, 2018
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Terrence Javon Allen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Javon Allen, Sr., 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. 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 Allen has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, deny Allen’s motion for transcript at government expense,
and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --