Robert Smart v. SC Dep't of Probation Parole, No. 14-7227 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-7227 ROBERT DALE SMART, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT SERVICES, OF PROBATION PAROLE AND PARDON Respondent - Appellee, and SOUTH CAROLINA, STATE OF, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:13-cv-03621-GRA) Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014 Before MOTZ, WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Robert Dale Smart, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Robert Dale Smart seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge, treating his motion filed under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e) and 60(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 unauthorized. (2012) petition, a dismissing it as Smart also seeks to appeal the district court s order denying reconsideration. unless and circuit appealability. justice 28 U.S.C. or The orders are not appealable judge issues § 2253(c)(1)(A) a certificate (2012); Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). Reid of v. A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2012). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this jurists would reasonable standard find by that demonstrating the district that 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). denies relief demonstrate both on procedural that the When the district court grounds, dispositive the prisoner procedural ruling must is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 2 Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smart has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, we construe Smart s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2254 petition. United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or previously discoverable (2) newly by due discovered diligence, evidence, that not would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). these criteria. would 28 U.S.C. Smart s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
