Court Opinion

ID: 3208060
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-31 19:01:18.295787+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:25.667742
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7936

JOHNNIE SMITH, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   David C. Norton, District Judge.
(8:12-cv-02566-DCN)

Submitted:   May 26, 2016                  Decided:   May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnnie Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Brendan J. McDonald, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

     Johnnie Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of a

prior order denying relief on 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); 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 (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

Smith 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

                                 2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3