Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08013/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08013-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-8013

TERRENCE MAURICE WHITAKER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ALVIN W. KELLER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, 

District Judge. (1:08-cv-00702-TDS-DPD)

Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Maurice Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8013 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Maurice Whitaker seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on 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) (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 Whitaker has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny 

Whitaker’s motions for appointment of counsel, for an 

evidentiary hearing, to grant release upon review and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

Appeal: 09-8013 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8013 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/15/2010 Pg: 3 of 3