Clark v. North Carolina , 196 F. App'x 224 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6567
    ORLANDO RAPHEAL CLARK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:05-hc-00180-H)
    Submitted: August 24, 2006                 Decided: August 30, 2006
    Before KING, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Orlando Rapheal Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Orlando    Rapheal   Clark     seeks   to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues   a   certificate    of     appealability.         
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).          A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.               Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clark 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-6567

Citation Numbers: 196 F. App'x 224

Judges: King, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/30/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024