Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06936/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06936-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Herman Belton
Appellant
Warden, Broad River Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6936

HERMAN BELTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (6:15-cv-00262-JMC)

Submitted: January 31, 2017 Decided: February 2, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Herman Belton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6936 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Herman Belton seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

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

order is 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 

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 16-6936 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6936 Doc: 18 Filed: 02/02/2017 Pg: 3 of 3