Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07480/USCOURTS-ca4-12-07480-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Butch Jackson
Appellee
Terrence Leroy Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7480

TERRENCE LEROY WRIGHT, a/k/a Terrence Wright El,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

BUTCH JACKSON,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Robert J. Conrad, 

Jr., Chief District Judge. (2:12-cv-00006-RJC)

Submitted: December 12, 2012 Decided: January 3, 2013

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Terrence Leroy Wright, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-7480 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/03/2013 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Terrence Leroy Wright 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)(A) (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 Wright has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny Wright’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny 

leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 12-7480 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/03/2013 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: 12-7480 Doc: 8 Filed: 01/03/2013 Pg: 3 of 3