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UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).