United States of America v. Mark Radcliffe

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20-6033

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MARK RADCLIFFE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00019-2; 5:17-cv -04045)

Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020

Before AGEE and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Radcliffe, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM:
Mark Radcliffe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Radcliffe’s 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2018) motion, and a subsequent order denying Radcliffe’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Radcliffe has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Radcliffe’s motions for a certificate of
appealability, deny his motion for a transcript at Government expense, 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