Timothy Crandell v. Kevin Barnes ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6971
    TIMOTHY CRANDELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    KEVIN BARNES, Superintendent, Department of Public Safety; ERIK A.
    HOOKS,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02116-BO)
    Submitted: December 18, 2018                                Decided: December 21, 2018
    Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Timothy Crandell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Timothy Crandell 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 Crandell 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: 18-6971

Filed Date: 12/21/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 12/21/2018