Court Opinion

ID: 4109121
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-12-20 21:01:38.160361+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:52:39.549064
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 16-7416

DON BILLUPS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.       Elizabeth Kay Dillon,
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00597-EKD-RSB)

Submitted:   December 15, 2016            Decided:   December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Billups, Appellant Pro Se.    Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Don      Billups      seeks    to    appeal    the     district    court’s      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).     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

Billups has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3