Court Opinion

ID: 1023596
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:40:16.031554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:25.158776
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 07-6089

ALFREDO CESMAS OCAMPO,

                                               Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,

                                                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00527-JAB-WW)

Submitted:   August 23, 2007                 Decided:   August 28, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfredo Cesmas Ocampo, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Alfredo   Cesmas     Ocampo   seeks     to    appeal    the    district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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 Ocampo has not

made the requisite showing.          Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed

in    forma    pauperis,    deny     the    motion    for     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 -