Court Opinion

ID: 8683438
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-25 06:34:51.174053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:57:32.347781
License: Public Domain

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael Orlando Cook seeks to appeal the district court’s order and judgment 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 light.” 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Cook’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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