Court Opinion

ID: 4410011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-06-25 19:00:21.430291+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:45.984152
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6478

KENNETH KELLY DUVALL,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

CARLOS HERNANDEZ, Superintendent of Avery Mitchell Correctional,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:18-cv-00108-FDW)

Submitted: June 20, 2019                                          Decided: June 25, 2019

Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Kelly DuVall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenneth Kelly DuVall seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as

untimely 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 DuVall has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny DuVall’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the 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

                                             2