US v. Octavius Cline, No. 12-7539 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7539 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. OCTAVIUS S. CLINE, a/k/a Toby, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:02-cr-01358-HMH-12; 6:12-cv-01337-HMH) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: February 28, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Octavius S. Cline, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Octavius S. Cline seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of the court s order dismissing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and construing it as a successive court. judge § 2255 motion authorization from this The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). issue without absent a of 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. appealability. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Cline has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 2 We dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3