Leonicio Arias Coreas v. HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Herrin

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6538
LEONICIO ARIAS COREAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Herrin,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, Senior District Judge. (3:17-cv-00515-HEH-RCY)
Submitted: July 19, 2018 Decided: July 24, 2018
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Leonicio Arias Coreas, Appellant Pro Se. Katherine Quinlan Adelfio, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Leonicio Arias Coreas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as time-barred. 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 Coreas has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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 --