David Smith v. Rick Jackson ( 2019 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 19-7109
    DAVID LEE SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RICK JACKSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:06-hc-02061-BO)
    Submitted: November 27, 2019                                Decided: December 10, 2019
    Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    David Lee Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    David Lee Smith seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion for
    release pending appeal filed in his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) proceeding. 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); Reid v. Angelone, 
    369 F.3d 363
    , 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 Smith 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: 19-7109

Filed Date: 12/10/2019

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/10/2019