Bryson v. Harkleroad , 405 F. App'x 773 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6622
    KASEAN DAMONT BRYSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    SID HARKLEROAD,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00036-GCM)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010              Decided:   December 27, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kasean Damont Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kasean      Damont    Bryson       seeks   to     appeal      the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or    judge   issues      a    certificate       of   appealability.              
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (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 Bryson 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6622

Citation Numbers: 405 F. App'x 773

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024