Court Opinion

ID: 9950417
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-03-13 21:00:38.216121+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:37:08.256069
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7029      Doc: 17         Filed: 03/12/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7029

        HAROLD M. BILLITER,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00022-GMG)

        Submitted: February 26, 2024                                      Decided: March 12, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Harold M. Billiter, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE
        OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for
        Appellee.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7029         Doc: 17        Filed: 03/12/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Harold M. Billiter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Billiter’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254

        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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, as here, 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, 580 U.S.

        100, 115-17 (2017).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Billiter 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

                                                       2