Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07067/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Director of Department of Corrections
Appellee
Kenneth H. Newkirk
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7067

KENNETH H. NEWKIRK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DIRECTOR OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District 

Judge. (3:15-cv-00172-HEH-RCY)

Submitted: November 19, 2015 Decided: November 23, 2015

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth H. Newkirk, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7067 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth H. Newkirk seeks to appeal the district court’s 

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

the order denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders 

are 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 

Newkirk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Newkirk’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 15-7067 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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: 15-7067 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/23/2015 Pg: 3 of 3