Jesse Minton v. Frank Perry, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsJesse Minton v. Frank Perry, 4th Cir. (2015)
Uploaded by
Scribd Government DocsUNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7792
JESSE MAVERICK MINTON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
L. Patrick Auld,
Magistrate Judge. (1:12-cv-00497-LPA)
Submitted:
February 25, 2015
Decided:
March 2, 2015
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jesse Maverick Minton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jesse
Maverick
Minton
seeks
to
appeal
the
district
courts order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012)
petition.
or
judge
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues
certificate
2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue
absent
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.
of
showing
of
the
denial
28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
of
When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this
standard
by
demonstrating
that
reasonable
jurists
would
find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484
Cockrell,
(2000);
(2003).
see
Miller-El
v.
537
U.S.
322,
336-38
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 Minton has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
deny Mintons motions for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
dispense
with
oral
argument
because
the
facts
and
We
legal
contentions
are
adequately
presented
in
the
materials
before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
