Court Opinion

ID: 2739446
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-02 19:01:15.287551+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:04:03.713383
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6824

OLIVER KAREEM PHILLIPS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

RANDALL LEE,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02194-BO)

Submitted:   September 19, 2014           Decided:   October 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Oliver Kareem Phillips, Appellant Pro Se.    Nicholaos George
Vlahos, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Oliver Kareem Phillips seeks to appeal the district

court’s order 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 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 Phillips has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, deny Phillips’s motion for transcripts at the

government’s expense, and dismiss the appeal.                         We dispense with

oral    argument     because       the    facts        and   legal    contentions        are

                                              2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                DISMISSED

                                     3