Cedeal Harper v. David Ballard , 591 F. App'x 204 ( 2015 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7452
CEDEAL T. HARPER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID BALLARD, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Robert C. Chambers,
Chief District Judge. (3:13-cv-23467)
Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cedeal T. Harper, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher S. Dodrill,
Scott E. Johnson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, Charleston,
West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Cedeal T. Harper seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on 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 Harper has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Harper’s motions for a certificate of appealability, for
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and for bail, and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3