Ray Holman v. Frank Perry

Summarize
Check Treatment

Related Cases

                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-6476


RAY ANTHONY HOLMAN,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

FRANK L. PERRY,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.     Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:15-cv-00569-LCB-JLW)


Submitted:   June 21, 2016                 Decided:   June 23, 2016


Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ray Anthony Holman, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Ray Anthony Holman seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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    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

Holman has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly, we deny

Holman’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave

to   proceed     in    forma     pauperis,      and   dismiss      the    appeal.       We

dispense       with    oral     argument       because     the    facts       and     legal

                                            2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3