Carl Nelson, II v. David Ballard
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999784854-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:14-cv-00086-JPB-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999894460]. Mailed to: Carl Nelson, II, Derek Knopp, Laura Young. [16-6310]
Appeal: 16-6310
Doc: 6
Filed: 07/22/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6310
CARL NELSON, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins.
John Preston Bailey,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-00086-JPB-RWT)
Submitted:
July 21, 2016
Decided:
July 22, 2016
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Carl Nelson, II, Appellant Pro Se. Derek A. Knopp, Laura Young,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6310
Doc: 6
Filed: 07/22/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Carl Nelson, II, seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
not
appealable
unless
a
circuit
certificate of appealability.
A
certificate
of
justice
or
The order is
judge
issues
a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
appealability
will
not
issue
absent
“a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief
on
the
demonstrating
district
merits,
that
court’s
debatable
or
a
prisoner
reasonable
assessment
wrong.
When the district court denies
Slack
satisfies
jurists
this
would
of
the
v.
McDaniel,
standard
find
constitutional
529
U.S.
by
that
the
claims
is
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
Nelson has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
Nelson’s motion for 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
2
Appeal: 16-6310
before
Doc: 6
this
Filed: 07/22/2016
court
and
Pg: 3 of 3
argument
would
not
aid
the
decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?