Kelly Pierce v. Erik Hooks ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6826
    KELLY WINTON PIERCE,
    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-00207-FDW)
    Submitted: November 29, 2018                                 Decided: December 4, 2018
    Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kelly Winton Pierce, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kelly Winton Pierce seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Pierce 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: 18-6826

Filed Date: 12/4/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/4/2018