Court Opinion

ID: 4196950
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-17 20:01:12.501859+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:47:29.947344
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-6378

ISIDRO ZARAATE VALENTE,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

FRANK L. PERRY,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Loretta C. Biggs, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00981-LCB-JLW)

Submitted: July 21, 2017                                          Decided: August 17, 2017

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isidro Zaraate Valente, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Isidro Zaraate Valente seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Valente has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 contentions are adequately presented in the

materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED

                                              2