Maurice Shepherd v. Harvey Clay , 694 F. App'x 164 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6456
    MAURICE SHEPHERD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    HARVEY CLAY, Superintendent,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:16-hc-02221-D)
    Submitted: July 27, 2017                                          Decided: August 1, 2017
    Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Maurice Shepherd, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Maurice Shepherd seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely
    his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 (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 Shepherd has not
    made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
    leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 17-6456

Citation Numbers: 694 F. App'x 164

Judges: Agee, Floyd, Hamilton, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 8/1/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024