James Hawkins, Jr. v. Keith Davis

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6805

JAMES WILLIE HAWKINS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

KEITH W. DAVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:15-cv-00145-JRS)

Submitted: November 17, 2016 Decided: November 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Willie Hawkins, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Victoria Lee
Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

James Willie Hawkins, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for

relief from the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d

363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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

Hawkins 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

2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED