Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07875/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07875-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7875

HOWARD CLEVELAND, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RICHARD L. NEELY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Loretta Copeland Biggs, 

District Judge. (1:15-cv-00549-LCB-JEP)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Cleveland, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7875 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard Cleveland, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

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

Cleveland 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 

Appeal: 15-7875 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

are adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7875 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3