Case Name: Carl Edward LYONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-05
Citations: 553 F. App'x 353
Docket Number: No. 13-7429
Parties: Carl Edward LYONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 553
Pages: 353–353

Head Matter:
Carl Edward LYONS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent KORNEGAY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7429.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 7, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 5, 2014.
Carl Edward Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Edward Lyons 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 certifícate of appeal-ability. 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." Id. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When, as here, 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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lyons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability 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.