Court Opinion

ID: 808737
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-09-18 18:45:27+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:31.779181
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7093

NICHOLAS N. CAULEY,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

SUPERINTENDENT JOYCE KORNEGAY,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Dever III,
Chief District Judge. (5:11-hc-02083-D)

Submitted:   September 11, 2012          Decided:   September 18, 2012

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Nicholas N. Cauley, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 appealable 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    (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 Cauley 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

                                             2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3