Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06915/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06915-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6915

MACHOT KUOL MAYEN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARK, Director, V Dept of Corr.,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:11-cv-01018-CMH-TCB)

Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: November 6, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Machot Kuol Mayen, Appellant Pro Se. Aaron Jennings Campbell, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6915 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Machot Kuol Mayen seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order, which construed Mayen’s post-judgment letter to the court 

as a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district 

court’s prior order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition, and denied that motion. 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 

Mayen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

Appeal: 15-6915 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense 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: 15-6915 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3