Court Opinion

ID: 3166158
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-12-29 20:00:46.350768+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:13:32.120900
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 15-7241

MICHAEL SCOTT SISTLER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

KENNETH E. LASSITER,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02080-F)

Submitted:   December 16, 2015            Decided:   December 29, 2015

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Scott Sistler, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Michael Scott Sistler 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.            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

Sistler has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny Sistler’s motion for 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

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3