Court Opinion

ID: 174671
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-09-02 17:50:08+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:31.407879
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 10-6548

JONATHAN HENSLEE,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.   Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:10-cv-00048-GCM)

Submitted:   August 26, 2010                 Decided:   September 2, 2010

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jonathan Henslee, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Jonathan Henslee 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) (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 Henslee has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    a        certificate       of    appealability,            deny

Henslee’s motions for discovery and to compel, and dismiss the

appeal.        We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions       are    adequately           presented        in    the    materials

                                                 2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3