Court Opinion

ID: 2754172
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-11-21 20:01:02.828921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:24.874370
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-7187

MICHAEL E. HERNANDEZ,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

DAVID MITCHELL,

                  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-00359-FDW)

Submitted:   November 18, 2014              Decided:   November 21, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael E. Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Michael     E.     Hernandez       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 Hernandez has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly,

we deny Hernandez’s motion to appoint counsel, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, 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

                                             2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3