Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06621/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06621-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ballard
Appellee
Scotty E. Boothe
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6621

SCOTTY E. BOOTHE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DAVID BALLARD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern 

District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston, 

District Judge. (2:14-cv-25165)

Submitted: October 19, 2016 Decided: November 18, 2016

Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Scotty E. Boothe, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6621 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Scotty E. Boothe appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying 

relief on Boothe’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The 

district court granted a partial certificate of appealability 

(COA), specifying a single issue relevant to the denial of four 

of Boothe’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims as 

unexhausted but procedurally defaulted:

Under [W. Va. Code Ann. § 53-4A-1(c) (LexisNexis 

2016)], may a court apply the statutory rebuttable 

presumption in favor of a knowing and intelligent 

waiver of certain claims if the petitioner was 

represented by counsel during the applicable 

proceedings and fails to argue that the waiver was not 

voluntary, or must the record nonetheless conclusively 

demonstrate that the waiver was not voluntary [sic] 

before a court may find that the petitioner waived 

certain claims?

Boothe has not requested that we expand the COA, see 4th Cir. R. 

22(a)(2) (governing expansion of COA), and does not address the 

substance of his remaining claims for relief in his informal

brief, see Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 

(4th Cir. 2004) (deeming issues not raised in appellate brief 

abandoned on appeal).

We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and 

find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion 

that, under the facts presented, the statutory presumption under 

§ 53-4A-1(c) would act as a procedural bar to Boothe’s 

Appeal: 16-6621 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

unexhausted claims. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and affirm substantially for the reasons stated 

by the district court. Boothe v. Ballard, No. 2:14-cv-25165 

(S.D. W. Va. Mar. 31, 2016). 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.

AFFIRMED

Appeal: 16-6621 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3