David N. Firewalker-Fields v. Harold W. Clarke

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-6377
DAVID N. FIREWALKER-FIELDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
HAROLD W. CLARKE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Elizabeth Kay Dillon, District Judge. (7:20-cv-00745-EKD-JCH)
Submitted: July 14, 2022 Decided: August 3, 2022
Before NIEMEYER, HARRIS, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Nighthorse Firewalker-Fields, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
David N. Firewalker-Fields seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(2) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order dismissing
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A); 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, 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 petition 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 Firewalker-Fields
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 --