Michael Hunt v. Erik Hooks

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-6307
MICHAEL EUGENE HUNT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ERIK A. HOOKS,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02313-D)
Submitted: July 27, 2020 Decided: July 30, 2020
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Eugene Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. * The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief
on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
could find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.
See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
*
Hunt filed his petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241, 2255 (2018). “[R]egardless
of how they are styled, federal habeas petitions of prisoners who are in custody pursuant
to the judgment of a State court should be treated as applications under § 2254.” In re
Wright, 826 F.3d 774, 779 (4th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks omitted).
2