James Benefield v. Brad Perritt , 583 F. App'x 241 ( 2014 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 14-6701
    JAMES E. BENEFIELD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BRAD PERRITT, Superintendent,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:13-hc-02158-BO)
    Submitted:   September 18, 2014          Decided:   September 25, 2014
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James E. Benefield, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James      E.     Benefield     seeks     to    appeal       the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely 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 Benefield 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
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 14-6701

Citation Numbers: 583 F. App'x 241

Judges: Wilkinson, Agee, Thacker

Filed Date: 9/25/2014

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024