James Conley v. Renoice Stancil , 491 F. App'x 422 ( 2012 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 12-7405
    JAMES HENRY CONLEY,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    RENOICE STANCIL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
    District Judge. (5:11-hc-02164-FL)
    Submitted:   December 7, 2012             Decided:   December 21, 2012
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Henry Conley, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James     Henry      Conley     seeks      to    appeal        the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
    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) (2006).              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) (2006).                   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 Conley has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we
    deny Conley’s motion to appoint counsel, 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
    2
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 12-7405

Citation Numbers: 491 F. App'x 422

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Motz

Filed Date: 12/21/2012

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024