Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07936/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07936-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7936

JOHNNIE SMITH, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(8:12-cv-02566-DCN)

Submitted: May 26, 2016 Decided: May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit 

Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Brendan J. McDonald, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Johnnie Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a 

prior 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 

Smith 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 

Appeal: 15-7936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7936 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/31/2016 Pg: 3 of 3