Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06755/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06755-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6755

THOMAS COVINGTON, JR., 

Petitioner - Appellant, 

v. 

GEORGE KENWORTHY, 

Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:10-hc-02044-FL) 

Submitted: September 17, 2015 Decided: October 6, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Thomas Covington, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 15-6755 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM: 

Thomas Covington, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motions to reconsider in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 

(2012) action. 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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 

363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 

Covington has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6755 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6755 Doc: 8 Filed: 10/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3