Court Opinion

ID: 1026896
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:14:00.823309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:22.889245
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6382

LACY D. HOCUTT,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

A. HATHAWAY,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (5:07-hc-02096-FL)

Submitted:   September 25, 2008             Decided:   October 16, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lacy D. Hocutt, Appellant Pro Se.     Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Lacy D. Hocutt seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.             The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000).            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)   (2000).   A   prisoner     satisfies      this   standard    by

demonstrating    that   reasonable       jurists   would     find   that     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.          Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hocutt 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 the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     2