Don Billups v. Harold Clarke

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999970241-2] Originating case number: 7:15-cv-00597-EKD-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999990523]. Mailed to: Don Billups. [16-7416]

Appeal: 16-7416

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7416

DON BILLUPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD CLARKE, Director of the Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Elizabeth Kay Dillon,
District Judge. (7:15-cv-00597-EKD-RSB)

Submitted:

December 15, 2016

Decided:

December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Billups, Appellant Pro Se.
Susan Elizabeth Baumgartner,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7416

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Don

Billups

seeks

to

appeal

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

(2012).

of

appealability.

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) (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
Billups 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

2

Appeal: 16-7416

Doc: 9

Filed: 12/20/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3