Hefner v. North Carolina

Full title: RICHARD LEE HEFNER, a/k/a Ricky L. Hefner, Petitioner - Appellant, v…

Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

Date published: Nov 3, 2023

No. 23-6276 (4th Cir. Nov. 3, 2023)

Opinion

23-6276

11-03-2023

RICHARD LEE HEFNER, a/k/a Ricky L. Hefner, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY, Respondents - Appellees.

Ricky L. Hefner, Appellant Pro Se.

PER CURIAM.

UNPUBLISHED

Submitted: October 31, 2023

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger, Chief District Judge. (1:21-cv-00317-MR)

Ricky L. Hefner, Appellant Pro Se.

Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM.

Ricky L. Hefner seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and denying reconsideration. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hefner 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.