UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6856
JUAN MANUEL JUAREZ-REYES,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
CARLTON JOYNER, Administrator, Harnett Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (5:13-cv-00068-RJC)
Submitted: August 29, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Juan Manuel Juarez-Reyes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Juan Manuel Juarez-Reyes seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Juarez-Reyes has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Juarez-Reyes’ motion for transcripts
at government expense. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3