Fred Halcomb, Jr. v. Warden Truitt

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/17/2025 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 23-7149 FRED R. HALCOMB, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TRUITT, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Joseph Dawson, III, District Judge. (8:22-cv-01877-JD) Submitted: August 25, 2025 Decided: September 17, 2025 Before WILKINSON, WYNN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/17/2025 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Fred R. Halcomb, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Halcomb’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition.* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 petition 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 Halcomb has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Halcomb’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts * We previously remanded for the district court to determine whether Halcomb filed a timely notice appealing the district court’s order under Fed. R. App. P. 4(c)(1) and Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988). After receiving Halcomb’s uncontested affidavit establishing that he submitted his notice of appeal to prison officials for mailing to the court within the applicable 30-day appeal period, see Fed. R. App. 4(a)(1)(A), the district court determined that the notice of appeal was timely filed. No party contests that finding on appeal, and we agree that Halcomb’s notice of appeal was timely filed. 2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7149 Doc: 14 Filed: 09/17/2025 Pg: 3 of 3 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3