Court Opinion

ID: 2716253
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-08-08 07:00:55.162095+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:01:44.466250
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 14-6787

VINCENT BRADY ALLEN,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

RANDY REGISTER,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00010-FDW)

Submitted:   July 24, 2014                     Decided:    July 29, 2014

Before FLOYD and      THACKER,   Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vincent Brady Allen, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Vincent      Brady    Allen        seeks   to    appeal      the   district

court’s    order   dismissing       as    successive        his   28    U.S.C.    § 2254

(2012) 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) (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 Allen 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

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3