Court Opinion

ID: 809858
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-10-10 18:25:57+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:00:35.977359
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7308

DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

NORTH CAROLINA    STATE;   CHRIS   FRANCIS,   Sheriff;   SUPERIOR
COURT,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00114-RJC)

Submitted:   September 26, 2012            Decided:   October 9, 2012

Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dennis Roger Vandyke, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Dennis        Roger   Vandyke       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.                            See 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 Vandyke has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We    dispense     with    oral    argument      because      the     facts       and   legal

                                            2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                3