UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6632
FRANKIE LEE CALHOUN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
TODD PINION,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:11-cv-01119-LPA)
Submitted: September 26, 2013 Decided: October 1, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Frankie Lee Calhoun, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Frankie Lee Calhoun seeks to appeal the magistrate
judge’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 Calhoun has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate
*
The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate
judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006).
2
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3