UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7962
JAMES EDWARD SPELLER, II,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THOMAS ASBELL,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02058-FL)
Submitted: April 28, 2014 Decided: May 2, 2014
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Edward Speller, II, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Edward Speller, II, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
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) (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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484-85 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Speller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal as it pertains to the
district court’s order dismissing Speller’s § 2254 petition as
untimely.
Speller also seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. In
light of our decision not to grant a certificate of
appealability on the district court’s order dismissing Speller’s
2
§ 2254 petition, we dismiss as moot Speller’s appeal as to this
order.
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