United States of America v. Nigel Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6185
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
NIGEL CLARKE,
Defendant - Appellant.
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)
Submitted: May 18, 2023 Decided: May 23, 2023
Before NIEMEYER, RICHARDSON, and RUSHING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Nigel Clarke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
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

-- 2 of 2 --