UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7022
ROBERT HOLLAND KOON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
COLIE RUSHTON, Warden of McCormick Correctional Institution;
HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General of the State of
South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(8:05-cv-02523-RBH)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Holland Koon, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Holland Koon seeks to appeal the district
court’s text orders denying his motions for recusal, motion for
appointment of counsel, motion to seal, motion for relief from
judgment, and supplemental motion to reopen judgment. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). 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 (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 Koon has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny Koon’s motion for appointment of counsel,
2
motion for recusal, and motion to remand or take judicial
notice. 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
3