Court Opinion

ID: 4191611
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-08-01 19:01:50.460146+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:23:46.727757
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 17-6694

DAVID KENNETH FOWLER,

            Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

FRANK L. PERRY, substituted for State of North Carolina,

            Respondent - Appellee,

             and

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

            Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00302-FDW)

Submitted: July 27, 2017                                      Decided: August 1, 2017

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Kenneth Fowler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       David Kenneth Fowler 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 Fowler 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED

                                             3