Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07122/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07122-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlton B. Joyner
Appellee
Owen D. Leavitt
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7122

OWEN D. LEAVITT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CARLTON B. JOYNER,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney, 

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00038-FDW)

Submitted: December 19, 2016 Decided: January 5, 2017

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Owen D. Leavitt, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7122 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Owen D. Leavitt seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. These orders are not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 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 

Leavitt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

deny Leavitt’s motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-7122 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7122 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/05/2017 Pg: 3 of 3