Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06486/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06486-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Harold W. Clarke
Appellee
Howard Z. Garnett
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6486

HOWARD Z. GARNETT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief

District Judge. (7:14-cv-00452-GEC-RSB)

Submitted: October 4, 2016 Decided: November 1, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, DUNCAN, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, 

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard Z. Garnett, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, 

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

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6486 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard Z. Garnett seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) motion for relief 

from the district court’s prior order denying relief on 

Garnett’s 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), abrogated 

in part by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 399–400 & n.7 

(4th Cir. 2015). 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. 

Appeal: 16-6486 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

Garnett has not made the requisite showing.* Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma 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

 * Because Garnett does not challenge the basis for the 

district court’s disposition on his Rule 60(b) motion in his 

informal brief, Garnett has forfeited appellate review of the 

court’s order. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

Appeal: 16-6486 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3