Corey Beckham v. Warden , 707 F. App'x 160 ( 2017 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-1904
COREY LEVON BECKHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (7:16-cv-00161-NKM-RSB)
Submitted: December 21, 2017 Decided: December 27, 2017
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Corey Levon Beckham, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Corey Levon Beckham seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
Beckham’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his 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)(A) (2012). 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 Beckham has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
2