UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6372
MICHAEL KANARD MAY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LARRY MILLER, Superintendent, Foothills
Correctional Institution; THEODIS BECK,
Secretary of North Carolina Department of
Correction,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-02-374-5-BO)
Submitted: June 19, 2003 Decided: July 10, 2003
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Kristin Davis Parks, NORTH CAROLINA PRISONER LEGAL SERVICES, INC.,
Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NORTH CAROLINA, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Kanard May, a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed
under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the
final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1) (2000).
The district court granted a certificate of appealability with
respect to May’s claim that the North Carolina short-form
indictment for murder violates Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466
(2000). Upon our review, we affirm the district court’s order
denying relief for the reasons stated by the district court. See
May v. Miller, No. CA-02-374-5-BO (E.D.N.C. Jan. 22, 2003).
May also claims that his constitutional rights were violated
when the trial court denied a request for a jury instruction as to
an alleged agreement between the State and a defense witness, and
that evidence of this agreement was suppressed and misrepresented
by the State to the jury and defense counsel. As to this claim, we
have independently reviewed the record and find that May has failed
to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000); Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322 (2003). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss as to this claim. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART
3