Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07354/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07354-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7354

MARK DANIEL STEPHENS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT JONES,

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. (5:13-hc-02151-D)

Submitted: January 28, 2015 Decided: March 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Daniel Stephens, Appellant Pro Se. Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH 

CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Mark Daniel Stephens 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 Stephens has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for 

transcripts at the government's expense and we dispense with 

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 14-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before the court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7354 Doc: 19 Filed: 03/02/2015 Pg: 3 of 3