Case Name: James Willie HAWKINS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith W. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-28
Citations: 671 F. App'x 52
Docket Number: No. 16-6805
Parties: James Willie HAWKINS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith W. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 52–53

Head Matter:
James Willie HAWKINS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Keith W. DAVIS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6805
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 17, 2016
Decided: November 28, 2016
James Willie Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee Johnson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Willie Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hawkins 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