Court Opinion

ID: 617343
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-11-17 20:40:39+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:40.876904
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 11-6383

ROGER LEE DEAL, SR.,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

            v.

R. Neely,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02033-FL)

Submitted:   November 15, 2011             Decided:   November 17, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roger Lee Deal, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Roger       Lee    Deal,    Sr.,        seeks    to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    dismissing         as     successive          his    28   U.S.C.    § 2254

(2006) petition.          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) (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       Deal    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

                                               2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3