Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07558/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07558-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodis Beck
Appellee
Ralph Franklin Fredrick
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7558

RALPH FRANKLIN FREDRICK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

THEODIS BECK, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

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

District Judge. (1:07-cv-00303-GCM)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 28, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Franklin Fredrick, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7558 Doc: 4 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Ralph Franklin Fredrick seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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. See 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

Fredrick has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Fredrick’s motion for 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: 07-7558 Doc: 4 Filed: 01/28/2008 Pg: 2 of 2