Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06127/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06127-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Nathaniel Lee Joyner
Appellant
Susan White
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6127

NATHANIEL LEE JOYNER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUSAN WHITE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (5:15-cv-00031-FDW)

Submitted: June 21, 2016 Decided: June 23, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nathaniel Lee Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, 

III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6127 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Nathaniel Lee Joyner 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 

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

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

further deny Joyner’s motion for a transcript at government 

expense. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-6127 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6127 Doc: 7 Filed: 06/23/2016 Pg: 3 of 3