Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07648/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07648-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ballard
Appellee
Harold L. Cyrus
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7648

HAROLD L. CYRUS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID BALLARD, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior

District Judge. (1:12-cv-09341)

Submitted: March 31, 2016 Decided: April 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold L. Cyrus, Appellant Pro Se. Shannon Frederick Kiser, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7648 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Harold L. Cyrus seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 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 

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

Cyrus’ motion for 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 

Appeal: 15-7648 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7648 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3