Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08057/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08057-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Cooper
Appellee
Julius Kevin Edwards
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-8057

JULIUS KEVIN EDWARDS, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

ROY COOPER, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., 

Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00528-JAB-DPD) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Julius Kevin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-8057 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Julius Kevin Edwards seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

successive. 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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edwards 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-8057 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2