Court Opinion

ID: 4353415
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-12-21 17:00:26.943979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:17:54.576702
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7056

MATTHEW OLIVER ALFORD,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of Public Safety; CARLOS HERNANDEZ,
Superintendent of Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution,

                    Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00217-FDW)

Submitted: December 18, 2018                                Decided: December 21, 2018

Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Matthew Oliver Alford, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Matthew Oliver Alford seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28

U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as his second 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and

dismissing it for lack of authorization from this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Alford 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

                                             2