Court Opinion

ID: 1087082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-10-25 18:37:32.329403+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:22:24.997162
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-7182

PHILLIP ANTOINE WOMACK,

                      Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                      Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (1:12-cv-01267-JAB-LPA)

Submitted:   October 22, 2013             Decided:   October 25, 2013

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Phillip Antoine Womack, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Phillip Antoine Womack seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order     accepting       the    recommendation       of    the    magistrate

judge and 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   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 Womack 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3