Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07109/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07109-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7109

JAMES CHARLES CALWILE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. H. MAUNEY,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(6:15-cv-02089-TMC)

Submitted: December 15, 2015 Decided: December 17, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Charles Calwile, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7109 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

James Charles Calwile seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive 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 

Calwile has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Calwile’s motion to 

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 

Appeal: 15-7109 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 15-7109 Doc: 11 Filed: 12/17/2015 Pg: 3 of 3