Matthew Alford v. Erik Hooks ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-7056
MATTHEW OLIVER ALFORD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of Public Safety; CARLOS HERNANDEZ,
Superintendent of Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00217-FDW)
Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Matthew Oliver Alford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Matthew Oliver Alford seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and
dismissing it for lack of authorization from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)
(2012). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. See 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 Alford 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