UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6737
CURTIS ANTHONY WITHERSPOON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SUSAN R. WHITE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00352-RJC)
Submitted: August 26, 2013 Decided: September 4, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Curtis Anthony Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Anthony Witherspoon seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability (“COA”).
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A COA 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. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); 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.
Here, the district court denied relief on procedural
grounds. In particular, Witherspoon’s petition is time-barred
under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1). We have independently reviewed
the record and conclude that Witherspoon has not made the
requisite showing for a COA. Accordingly, we dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3