Court Opinion

ID: 2670687
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-04-21 19:23:29.407316+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:16.793937
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 13-7723

JOHN WAYNE SIMMONS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

ENNIS OATES,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02180-FL)

Submitted:   April 17, 2014                 Decided:   April 21, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Wayne Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.   Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney  General, Raleigh, North  Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              John   Wayne       Simmons     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.             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 Simmons 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 this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3