UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7159
MARVIN W. MILLSAPS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LEWIS SMITH, Administrator, Albemarle Correctional
Institution,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
BUTCH JACKSON, Administrator, Nash Correctional Institution,
Respondent.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (5:12-cv-00146-RJC)
Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin W. Millsaps, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Marvin W. Millsaps 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. See 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 Millsaps has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Millsaps’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We deny as well Millsaps’s other pending
motions, and we dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
3
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
4