Billy Mills v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 15-7008 (4th Cir. 2015)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7008 BILLY RAY MILLS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01320-TMC) Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015 Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy Ray Mills, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy Ray Mills seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 petition 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 Mills has not made the requisite showing. a certificate dispense with of appealability oral argument and dismiss because 2 Accordingly, we deny the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 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.