Case Name: Anthony Junior BARNHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-02-26
Citations: 511 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 12-8065
Parties: Anthony Junior BARNHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 511
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
Anthony Junior BARNHILL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-8065.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2013.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2013.
Anthony Junior Barnhill, Appellant Pro Se.
Before AGEE and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Junior Barnhill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Barnhill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.