Michael Eugene Reed, II v. Erik A. Hooks , 704 F. App'x 302 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 17-6771
    MICHAEL EUGENE REED, II,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERIK A. HOOKS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
    at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (5:17-cv-00087-FDW)
    Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 30, 2017
    Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Eugene Reed, II, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Eugene Reed, II, 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 Reed has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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: 17-6771

Citation Numbers: 704 F. App'x 302

Judges: Niemeyer, Agee, Thacker

Filed Date: 11/30/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024