Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06774/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06774-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Otto Gary Normand
Appellant
B. Wells
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6774

OTTO GARY NORMAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

B. WELLS, Superintendent,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02256-BO)

Submitted: January 29, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otto Gary Normand, Appellant Pro Se. Roy Cooper, Attorney 

General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6774 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/16/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Otto Gary Normand seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying 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. 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 

Normand 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 

Appeal: 15-6774 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/16/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6774 Doc: 21 Filed: 02/16/2016 Pg: 3 of 3