Myron Nunn v. Frank Perry ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6794
    MYRON RODERICK NUNN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK PERRY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
    Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02129-D)
    Submitted:   October 15, 2015             Decided:   October 19, 2015
    Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Myron Roderick Nunn, Appellant Pro Se.       Peter Andrew Regulski,
    Assistant  Attorney  General,  Raleigh,       North  Carolina,  for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Myron Roderick Nunn 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
    Nunn 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
    2
    contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before
    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6794

Judges: Wilkinson, Agee, Harris

Filed Date: 10/19/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024