Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07473/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07473-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 12-7473

ROGER LEE DEAL, SR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:12-hc-02067-BO)

Submitted: December 27, 2012 Decided: January 4, 2013

Before MOTZ, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7473 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Roger Lee Deal, Sr. seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2006) 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) (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 (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 Deal 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 dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 12-7473 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 12-7473 Doc: 10 Filed: 01/04/2013 Pg: 3 of 3