Court Opinion

ID: 626585
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-04-03 19:39:59+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:51:16.327111
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 12-6194

HAIBER V. MONTEHERMOSO,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (3:11-cv-00291-RJC)

Submitted:   March 29, 2012                 Decided:   April 3, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Haiber V. Montehermoso, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Haiber V. Montehermoso 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)(A) (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     Montehermoso        has      not     made      the       requisite      showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the    appeal.       We    also    deny     Montehermoso’s          pending   motion      to

appoint counsel.           We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions       are   adequately         presented     in    the

                                             2
materials   before   the   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                  DISMISSED

                                    3