Court Opinion

ID: 4662289
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2021-02-23 20:00:26.02151+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:02:20.546420
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                       No. 20-7336

RONNIE PERRY,

                     Petitioner - Appellant,

              v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

                     Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:20-hc-02028-FL)

Submitted: February 18, 2021                                  Decided: February 23, 2021

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Perry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ronnie Perry seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as an unauthorized, successive § 2254 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). 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). When, as here,

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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perry 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