Case Name: Nicholas N. CAULEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Joyce KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-18
Citations: 478 F. App'x 777
Docket Number: No. 12-7093
Parties: Nicholas N. CAULEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Joyce KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 777–778

Head Matter:
Nicholas N. CAULEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Joyce KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2012.
Decided: Sept. 18, 2012.
Nicholas N. Cauley, Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Nicholas N. Cauley seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cauley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.