Marqueion Harrison v. Willie Davis

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7844

MARQUEION JAMAL HARRISON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

WILLIE DAVIS,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02084-D)

Submitted: March 27, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014

Before MOTZ, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marqueion Harrison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Marqueion Harrison seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition because it was untimely and unexhausted. 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)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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 Harrison has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED