United States v. Octavius Cline

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7539

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:12-cv-01337-HMH)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of the court’s

order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend his

28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and construing it as

a successive § 2255 motion without authorization from this

court. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 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 Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

2
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