Luther Stidham v. Lamar Paysour ( 2011 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6468
LUTHER DANIEL STIDHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUPERINTENDENT LAMAR PAYSOUR; DIRECTOR ROBERT C. LEWIS,
Respondents – Appellees.
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-02029-FL)
Submitted: August 24, 2011 Decided: August 30, 2011
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Luther Daniel Stidham, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Luther Daniel Stidham 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 Stidham has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We further deny Stidham’s pending motions,
including his motions to amend exhibits, for an expedited
ruling, for release pending appeal, and for acquittal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3