Case ID: f-appx_585/html/0032-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Robert Holland KOON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Colie RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 14-7022.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Oct. 16, 2014.
    Decided: Oct. 22, 2014.
    Robert Holland Koon, pro se. William Edgar Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, SC, for Appellees.
    Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the district court’s text orders denying his motions for recusal, motion for appointment of counsel, motion to seal, motion for relief from judgment, and supplemental motion to reopen judgment. The orders are 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Koon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Koon’s motion for appointment of counsel, motion for recusal, and motion to remand or take judicial notice. 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.