Court Opinion

ID: 4385818
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-04-10 19:00:28.162052+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:31:10.784918
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7377

CARLTON EUGENE ANDERSON,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

JOHN A. HERRING,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina,
at Asheville. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (1:17-cv-00265-FDW)

Submitted: April 4, 2019                                          Decided: April 10, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Carlton Eugene Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Carlton Eugene Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief

on 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 Anderson 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                             DISMISSED

                                             2