Court Opinion

ID: 149548
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-06-25 17:37:18+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:11.027292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 10-6136

CHARLES A. RIPPY-BEY,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ROBERT JONES,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00128-GCM)

Submitted:   June 17, 2010                       Decided:   June 25, 2010

Before MOTZ and    KING,     Circuit   Judges,    and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles A. Rippy-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Charles     A.     Rippy-Bey       seeks   to     appeal      the    district

court’s order 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) (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 Rippy-Bey has not made the requisite showing.

              Accordingly,        we   deny       Rippy-Bey’s         motions          for   a

certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel and dismiss

the appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

                                             2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3