Jonathan Uzzell v. Travis Outlaw , 456 F. App'x 307 ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6519
JONATHAN ANTHONY UZZELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TRAVIS OUTLAW,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:10-hc-02003-FL)
Submitted: October 27, 2011 Decided: December 5, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jonathan Anthony Uzzell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Anthony Uzzell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. 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) (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 Uzzell 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
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4