Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07064/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07064-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-7064

GEORGE H. SPIKER, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, District Judge. 

(7:15-cv-00379-JPJ-RSB)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 22, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George H. Spiker, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Watkins Blanton, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7064 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

George H. Spiker, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 

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 

(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 

Spiker 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: 16-7064 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7064 Doc: 9 Filed: 11/22/2016 Pg: 3 of 3