Court Opinion

ID: 9929749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-03 21:01:04.665598+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:47:05.844349
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6062      Doc: 18         Filed: 02/02/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6062

        CLIFTON WILLIAM BATTS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. Richard E. Myers, II, Chief District Judge. (5:21-hc-02239-M)

        Submitted: January 11, 2024                                       Decided: February 2, 2024

        Before HARRIS, QUATTLEBAUM, and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Clifton William Batts, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6062       Doc: 18         Filed: 02/02/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Clifton William Batts 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Batts has not made

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

        appeal. We deny Batts’ motion for appointment of counsel, and 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

               *
                  In light of Batts’ contentions on appeal, we have also confirmed that the district
        court disposed of all the claims that were properly before it and, thus, that the court’s order
        is final and appealable. See Martin v. Duffy, 858 F.3d 239, 246 (4th Cir. 2017).

                                                      2