Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06745/USCOURTS-ca4-19-06745-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
United States District Court for Eastern District of Virginia
Appellee
Howard White
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6745

HOWARD WHITE,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR EASTERN DISTRICT OF 

VIRGINIA (ALEXANDRIA DIVISION),

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at 

Alexandria. Anthony John Trenga, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00214-AJT-MSN)

Submitted: December 30, 2019 Decided: January 16, 2020

Before WILKINSON and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Howard White, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6745 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/16/2020 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Howard White seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 

28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition and denying reconsideration. The orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 White has not made the requisite showing. 

White also appeals the district court’s denial of his motion for recusal. We review 

a judge’s recusal decision for abuse of discretion. United States v. Stone, 866 F.3d 219, 

229 (4th Cir. 2017). White fails to establish that recusal was required. See Belue v. 

Leventhal, 640 F.3d 567, 572-74 (4th Cir. 2011) (discussing valid basis for bias or partiality 

motion); United States v. Lentz, 524 F.3d 501, 530 (4th Cir. 2008) (“The presiding judge 

is not . . . required to recuse himself simply because of unsupported, irrational or highly 

tenuous speculation.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Although White notes that he 

sued the presiding judge, “[p]arties cannot . . . create the basis for recusal by their own 

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6745 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/16/2020 Pg: 2 of 3
3

deliberate actions.” United States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1156 (4th Cir. 1990). We 

therefore conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the recusal 

motion. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny White’s motion for an 

administrative stay, 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

USCA4 Appeal: 19-6745 Doc: 14 Filed: 01/16/2020 Pg: 3 of 3