US v. Mark Radcliffe, No. 20-6033 (4th Cir. 2020)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 20-6033 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. MARK RADCLIFFE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Irene C. Berger, District Judge. (5:16-cr-00019-2; 5:17-cv-04045) Submitted: May 21, 2020 Decided: May 27, 2020 Before AGEE and QUATTLEBUAM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Mark Radcliffe, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Mark Radcliffe seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Radcliffe’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion, and a subsequent order denying Radcliffe’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 motion 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 Radcliffe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Radcliffe’s motions for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for a transcript at Government expense, 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.
