Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06101/USCOURTS-ca4-20-06101-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Earl Dillard
Appellant
Scott Lewis
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6101

ROBERT EARL DILLARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SCOTT LEWIS, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Charleston. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:19-cv-02393-JFA)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Earl Dillard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 20-6101 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/27/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Robert Earl Dillard seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Dillard’s 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 Dillard has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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: 20-6101 Doc: 8 Filed: 05/27/2020 Pg: 2 of 2