UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7261

THOMAS A. CHILTON, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00871-JRS)

Submitted:

March 27, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit

Circuit Judges.

Judge,

Decided: March 31, 2014

and

HAMILTON

and

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas A. Chilton, III, Appellant Pro Se.

Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, III, seeks to appeal the district
courts

order

denying

his

Fed.

R.

Civ.

P.

60(b)

motion

for

reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on

his

28

U.S.C.

appealable

2254

unless

(2012)

petition.

circuit

justice

certificate of appealability.
Reid

v.

Angelone,

A certificate

of

369

The
or

order

judge

is

issues

not
a

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012);

F.3d

363,

appealability

369

will

(4th

not

Cir.

issue

2004).

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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 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 Chilton has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Chiltons motion for a certificate of appealability and

2

dismiss the appeal.

facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED