Court Opinion

ID: 4097435
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-11-10 20:01:11.331697+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:32.395208
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 15-6248

KEITH ALAN CLARK,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden Perry Correctional Institution,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill.      Bruce H. Hendricks, District
Judge. (0:13-cv-00351-BHH)

Submitted:   November 2, 2016              Decided:   November 10, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen L. Braga, Joseph DaSilva, Harrison Marino, UNIVERSITY OF
VIRGINIA   SCHOOL   OF   LAW,  Charlottesville,  Virginia,   for
Appellant. Susannah Rawl Cole, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Keith Alan Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.                         The order is not

appealable      unless        a    circuit         justice     or     judge       issues     a

certificate of appealability.                28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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    motion    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

Clark 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

                                               2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3