Case ID: f-appx_539/html/0151-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM: magistrate judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Joseph HUNEYCUTT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ricky Lewis NEELEY, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 13-6761.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 29, 2013.
    Decided: Sept. 4, 2013.
    Joseph Huneycutt, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForege, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: magistrate judge.

Joseph Huneycutt seeks to appeal the magistrate judge’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Huneycutt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pau-peris, and dismiss the appeal. We grant Huneycutt’s motion to amend. 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. 
      
       The parties consented to proceed before a