UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6727
RAYMOND GRIFFIN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
DONNIE HARRISON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02259-FL)
Submitted: September 13, 2016 Decided: September 15, 2016
Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Raymond Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and he
has filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, as well as a
motion for appointment of counsel. The district court’s 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 conclude that Griffin has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Griffin’s motion for appointment
of counsel, deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis,
deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We
2
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