Court Opinion

ID: 4568232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2020-09-22 22:33:37.625751+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:27:31.079128
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-6215

SOLOMON NIMROD BUTLER,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

DENNIS DANIELS,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02305-D)

Submitted: August 20, 2020                                   Decided: September 8, 2020

Before NIEMEYER, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Solomon Nimrod Butler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Solomon Nimrod Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 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, 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 Butler has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny Butler’s motions to expedite and for summary disposition as moot. 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