Court Opinion

ID: 3158701
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-11-30 20:00:50.030578+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:03:17.319173
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 15-7157

CHARLES GENE ROGERS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02042-FL)

Submitted:   November 13, 2015              Decided:    November 30, 2015

Before KING and    THACKER,    Circuit   Judges,       and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Gene Rogers, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Charles Gene Rogers 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

Rogers has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we 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

                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3