Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07831/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07831-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Theodis Beck
Appellee
Richard John Romano
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7831

RICHARD JOHN ROMANO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

THEODIS BECK,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

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

Chief District Judge. (5:08-hc-02168-FL)

Submitted: July 19, 2010 Decided: August 11, 2010

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard John Romano, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 

Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7831 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/11/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard John Romano seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Romano 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 contentions are adequately presented in the 

Appeal: 09-7831 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/11/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7831 Doc: 14 Filed: 08/11/2010 Pg: 3 of 3