Opinion
No. 19-7774
04-16-2020
JAMES GREGORY ARMISTEAD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of the North Carolina Department of Public Safety; JOSEPH VALLIERE, Administrator of the Piedmont Correctional Institution, Respondents - Appellees.
James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:18-hc-02141-FL) Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James G. Armistead, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
James Gregory Armistead seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition. 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) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (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 Armistead has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for a certificate of appealability and for appointment of counsel, 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