Case ID: f-appx_672/html/0301-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Owen D. LEAVITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Carlton B. JOYNER, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 16-7122
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: December 19, 2016
    Decided: January 5, 2017
    Owen D. Leavitt, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Owen D. Leavitt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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, 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 Leavitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Leavitt’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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