Robert Butler v. Harold Clarke
Robert Butler v. Harold Clarke
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6645
ROBERT EDWARD BUTLER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. John A. Gibney, Jr., District Judge. (3:18-cv-00102-JAG-RCY)
Submitted: October 23, 2018 Decided: October 26, 2018
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Edward Butler, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Robert Edward Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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); Reid v.
Angelone,
369 F.3d 363, 369(4th Cir. 2004). 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 Butler 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 presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished