Filed: Apr. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 03, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6064 WILLIAM COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES MCRAE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00131-FDW) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinoin. William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Un
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-6064 WILLIAM COLEMAN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JAMES MCRAE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00131-FDW) Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017 Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinoin. William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Unp..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6064
WILLIAM COLEMAN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JAMES MCRAE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:16-cv-00131-FDW)
Submitted: April 25, 2017 Decided: April 28, 2017
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinoin.
William Coleman, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Coleman seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Coleman has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
2