Harold Billiter v. Ralph Terry

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Harold Billiter v. Ralph Terry

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7029 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/12/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-7029

HAROLD M. BILLITER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

RALPH TERRY, Acting Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, District Judge. (3:17-cv-00022-GMG)

Submitted: February 26, 2024 Decided: March 12, 2024

Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harold M. Billiter, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Sara See, Michael Ray Williams, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 22-7029 Doc: 17 Filed: 03/12/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:

Harold M. Billiter seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Billiter’s

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, as here, 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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Billiter 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished