Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07433/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07433-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jackie Ray Cearley
Appellant
Frank Perry
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7433

JACKIE RAY CEARLEY,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

FRANK PERRY,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle 

District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. William L. Osteen, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00397-WO-LPA)

Submitted: February 24, 2015 Decided: March 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Ray Cearley, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant 

Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jackie Ray Cearley 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 

Cearley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny leave to proceed in formal pauperis, deny a certificate of 

appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 14-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7433 Doc: 12 Filed: 03/31/2015 Pg: 3 of 3