Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06013/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06013-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Bruce L. Gorham-El
Appellant
State of North Carolina
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6013

BRUCE L. GORHAM-EL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

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-02177-FL)

Submitted: July 29, 2016 Decided: August 3, 2016

Before NIEMEYER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce L. Gorham-El, Appellant Pro Se. Nicholaos George Vlahos, 

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, 

for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6013 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Bruce L. Gorham-El seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on 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 

Gorham-El 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 

Appeal: 16-6013 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6013 Doc: 11 Filed: 08/03/2016 Pg: 3 of 3