Court Opinion

ID: 856996
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-04-02 19:28:04.961089+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:34.255882
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-8038

MARQUILL D. SIDBURY,

                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.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02040-BO)

Submitted:   March 28, 2013                 Decided:   April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquill D. Sidbury, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Marquill        D.   Sidbury    seeks      to    appeal       the    district

court’s    order     denying       relief    on    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)(A) (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 Sidbury has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly,

we deny the pending motion for 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3