Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07824/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07824-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7824

DONALD WAYNE SHIPE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TRACY S. RAY, Warden of Red Onion State Prison,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Michael F. Urbanski, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00454-SGW-mfu)

Submitted: May 19, 2016 Decided: June 8, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Donald Wayne Shipe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 

III, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia; Erin Marie 

Harrigan Kulpa, Assistant United States Attorney, 

Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7824 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/08/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Donald Wayne Shipe seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying Shipe’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief 

from the court’s prior judgment denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2012) petition. This order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 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 motion 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 

Shipe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly we deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and we dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 15-7824 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/08/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7824 Doc: 11 Filed: 06/08/2016 Pg: 3 of 3