Filed: Aug. 13, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6343 KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RENOICE STANCIL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00175-RJC) Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Leonardo Shrop
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6343 KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RENOICE STANCIL, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00175-RJC) Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith Leonardo Shrops..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6343
KEITH LEONARDO SHROPSHIRE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
RENOICE STANCIL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:12-cv-00175-RJC)
Submitted: July 23, 2013 Decided: August 13, 2013
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith Leonardo Shropshire, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Keith Leonardo Shropshire 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 motion 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 Shropshire has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny 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