Nathaniel Caldwell, III v. Roberto Roberts, No. 17-6271 (4th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on October 30, 2017.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6271 NATHANIEL CALDWELL, III, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN ROBERTO ROBERTS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:14-cv-04277-RMG) Submitted: March 20, 2018 Before KING, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Nathaniel Caldwell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Decided: April 25, 2018 PER CURIAM: Nathaniel Caldwell, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the magistrate judge’s recommendation in part, denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 motion 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 Caldwell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the pending motion as moot, 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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
