Court Opinion

ID: 2796668
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-04-27 19:01:51.030699+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:20:55.810233
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7783

JOSEPH BRIAN TARLETON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

HERB JACKSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00386-FDW)

Submitted:   April 23, 2015                 Decided:   April 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph Brian Tarleton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Joseph Brian Tarleton 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     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

Tarleton has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny Tarleton’s motions for confirmation of indigency and “for

clarification and correction,” deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

                                           2
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

                                      3