Marquill Sidbury v. State of North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8038

MARQUILL D. SIDBURY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02040-BO)

Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marquill D. Sidbury, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Marquill D. Sidbury seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Sidbury has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny the pending 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