Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07008/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07008-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Leroy Cartledge
Appellee
Billy Ray Mills
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7008

BILLY RAY MILLS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-01320-TMC)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Billy Ray Mills, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7008 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Billy Ray Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as successive 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 

Mills 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 

Appeal: 15-7008 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7008 Doc: 5 Filed: 10/20/2015 Pg: 3 of 3