UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6047
MARC HUBBARD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BARRY BARNETTE; J. MARK HAYES; ALAN WILSON; JUDGES OF THE
SPARTANBURG COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00634-FDW)
Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 3, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick Michael Megaro, APPEALS LAW GROUP, Orlando, Florida, for
Appellant. James Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General,
Robert D. Cook, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH
CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marc Hubbard seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his pretrial 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 (2012)
petitions and his motion to stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251
(2012). * 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
Hubbard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
*
Hubbard also moved in this court for stay of the state
proceedings pursuant to § 2251; we denied that motion by order
filed on January 23, 2015.
2
deny a certificate 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