[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
34 views3 pages

Ramon Cunningham v. Frank Perry, 4th Cir. (2016)

This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ramon Cunningham's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court concludes that Cunningham has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismisses the appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
34 views3 pages

Ramon Cunningham v. Frank Perry, 4th Cir. (2016)

This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Ramon Cunningham's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court concludes that Cunningham has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismisses the appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7482

RAMON DEANGELO CUNNINGHAM,


Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00404-FDW)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ramon Deangelo Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se.


Peter Andrew
Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Ramon
courts

Deangelo

order

petition.

Cunningham

denying

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

absent

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.

See 28 U.S.C.

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
Cunningham has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability 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

You might also like