US v. Tibel Clark

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 4:01-cr-00056-CWH-2,4:04-cv-00747-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999137059]. Mailed to: Tibel Clark. [13-6209]

Appeal: 13-6209

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6209

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
TIBEL CLARK, a/k/a Felix Johnson,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
C. Weston Houck, Senior District
Judge; Henry M. Herlong, Jr. Senior District Judge.
(4:01-cr00056-CWH-2; 4:04-cv-00747-HMH)

Submitted:

June 20, 2013

Decided:

June 25, 2013

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tibel Clark, Appellant Pro Se.
Alfred William Walker Bethea,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6209

Doc: 7

Filed: 06/25/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Tibel Clark seeks to appeal the district court’s order
construing his motion for reconsideration as a motion pursuant
to

28

U.S.C.A.

successive.
justice

or

§ 2255

(West

The

order

is

judge

issues

a

Supp.
not

2012),

appealable

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006).

and

of

denying

unless

a

it

as

circuit

appealability.

28

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) (2006).

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 13-6209

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 06/25/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3