Court Opinion

ID: 854714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-03-08 20:09:00.597808+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:06.749567
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7812

TITUS LAMONT BATTS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN OAKS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02106-F)

Submitted:   February 22, 2013            Decided:   March 8, 2013

Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Lamont Batts, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Titus      Lamont     Batts     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 Batts has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny Batts’ motions to appoint counsel, for a certificate of

appealability, and for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and

we dismiss the appeal.              We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

                                             2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3