Sanders v. State of North Carolina

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Sanders v. State of North Carolina, 308 F. App'x 683 (4th Cir. 2009)

Sanders v. State of North Carolina

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-7599

WARREN RAYVON SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:08-cv-00069-NCT-WWD)

Submitted: January 15, 2009 Decided: January 22, 2009

Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren Rayvon Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorneys General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Warren Rayvon Sanders seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate

judge and denying relief on Sanders’

28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2006)

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) (2006). 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) (2006). A

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683-84

(4th Cir. 2001). We

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sanders

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

2

Reference

Status
Unpublished