UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR., a/k/a Smitty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00007-FPS-JES-1)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia; Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., John Castle Parr,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia;
Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s
order denying his motions for a mandatory evidentiary hearing,
to strike the Government’s consolidated response to his motions,
for a release order, and for a certificate of release, and
construing his motions for summary judgment and to review his
sentence as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions and
dismissing them as unauthorized. We confine our review to the
issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).
Smith does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the
district court’s denial of his motions for a mandatory
evidentiary hearing, to strike the Government’s consolidated
response to his motions, for a release order, and for a
certificate of release. Thus, he has forfeited appellate review
of the court’s disposition of those motions, and we affirm that
portion of the court’s order.
To the extent that Smith seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his motions for review of sentence and
for summary judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255
motions, the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (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
2
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 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
Smith 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.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3