Court Opinion

ID: 2647309
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-12-23 20:18:09.698245+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:56.804115
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 13-6717

ZONTA TAVARAS ELLISON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.   Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:13-cv-00094-RJC)

Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 23, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zonta Tavaras Ellison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Zonta      Tavaras    Ellison       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.           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 Ellison has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                         We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3