Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07715/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07715-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-7715

EGBERT FRANCIS, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ADMINISTRATOR DAVID MITCHELL,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:15-hc-02007-BO)

Submitted: February 25, 2016 Decided: March 2, 2016

Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Egbert Francis, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7715 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Egbert Francis, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 

Francis 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 presented 

Appeal: 15-7715 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7715 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/02/2016 Pg: 3 of 3