Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07341/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07341-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Roy Cooper
Appellee
John E. Pate
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7341

JOHN E. PATE,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

ROY COOPER,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00086-FDW)

Submitted: December 15, 2016 Decided: December 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John E. Pate, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7341 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John E. Pate seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

dismissing 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 

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Pate’s motions for a 

certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel, and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-7341 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7341 Doc: 12 Filed: 12/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3