UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6621
SCOTTY E. BOOTHE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. Thomas E. Johnston,
District Judge. (2:14-cv-25165)
Submitted: October 19, 2016 Decided: November 18, 2016
Before KEENAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Scotty E. Boothe, Appellant Pro Se. Shannon Frederick Kiser,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Scotty E. Boothe appeals the district court’s order
adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying
relief on Boothe’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The
district court granted a partial certificate of appealability
(COA), specifying a single issue relevant to the denial of four
of Boothe’s ineffective assistance of counsel claims as
unexhausted but procedurally defaulted:
Under [W. Va. Code Ann. § 53-4A-1(c) (LexisNexis
2016)], may a court apply the statutory rebuttable
presumption in favor of a knowing and intelligent
waiver of certain claims if the petitioner was
represented by counsel during the applicable
proceedings and fails to argue that the waiver was not
voluntary, or must the record nonetheless conclusively
demonstrate that the waiver was not voluntary [sic]
before a court may find that the petitioner waived
certain claims?
Boothe has not requested that we expand the COA, see 4th Cir. R.
22(a)(2) (governing expansion of COA), and does not address the
substance of his remaining claims for relief in his informal
brief, see Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4
(4th Cir. 2004) (deeming issues not raised in appellate brief
abandoned on appeal).
We have thoroughly reviewed the record in this case and
find no reversible error in the district court’s conclusion
that, under the facts presented, the statutory presumption under
§ 53-4A-1(c) would act as a procedural bar to Boothe’s
2
unexhausted claims. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in
forma pauperis and affirm substantially for the reasons stated
by the district court. Boothe v. Ballard, No. 2:14-cv-25165
(S.D. W. Va. Mar. 31, 2016). 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
3