Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06093/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06093-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Spencer Hill
Appellee
Gary Wayne Mullins
Appellant
Mark Williamson

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6093

GARY WAYNE MULLINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SPENCER HILL, Acting Warden of Anthony Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

MARK WILLIAMSON,

Respondent.

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

Charleston. John T. Copenhaver, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-04075)

Submitted: May 19, 2020 Decided: May 22, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gary Wayne Mullins, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6093 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gary Wayne Mullins seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Mullins’ 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2018) 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) (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 could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mullins 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

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6093 Doc: 9 Filed: 05/22/2020 Pg: 2 of 2