Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06788/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06788-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Herb Jackson
Appellee
John Lamont Lewis
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6788

JOHN LAMONT LEWIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HERB JACKSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,

Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00091-GCM)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lamont Lewis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6788 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Lamont Lewis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order 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. See 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 that Lewis has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Lewis’s motion for a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

Appeal: 10-6788 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6788 Doc: 8 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3