Opinion
23-6185
05-23-2023
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NIGEL CLARKE, Defendant-Appellant.
Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Submitted: May 18, 2023
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (4:02-cr-00060-FL-5; 4:10-cv-00195-H)
Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Nigel Clarke seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's prior order dismissing his initial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion as time-barred and from the court's December 2020 order denying prior Rule 60(b) 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). See generally United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 &n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clarke 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.
DISMISSED