Court Opinion

ID: 9946006
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-28 21:01:11.532392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:20.194692
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080      Doc: 14         Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 1 of 2

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7080

        DREW C. HARTLEY,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; SHERIFF OF ONSLOW COUNTY,

                             Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
        Raleigh. James C. Dever III, District Judge. (5:23-hc-02113-D)

        Submitted: February 22, 2024                                  Decided: February 27, 2024

        Before NIEMEYER and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Drew C. Hartley, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7080      Doc: 14          Filed: 02/27/2024     Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Drew C. Hartley, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying

        relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

        reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

        certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this

        standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment

        of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17

        (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

        134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hartley has not made

        the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

        appeal. We also deny all of Hartley’s pending motions. 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

                                                      2