Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06145/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06145-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jonathan Eugene Brunson
Appellant
George Solomon
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6145

JONATHAN EUGENE BRUNSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GEORGE SOLOMON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

District Judge. (5:14-hc-02009-FL)

Submitted: May 15, 2015 Decided: June 18, 2015

Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Eugene Brunson, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Andrew 

Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6145 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
PER CURIAM:

Jonathan Eugene Brunson seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing 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. 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 

Brunson 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 

2

Appeal: 15-6145 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

3

Appeal: 15-6145 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/18/2015 Pg: 3 of 3