Michael Hernandez v. David Mitchell
Michael Hernandez v. David Mitchell
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7187
MICHAEL E. HERNANDEZ,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DAVID MITCHELL,
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-00359-FDW)
Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 21, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Michael E. Hernandez seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 473, 484(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38(2003). 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 Hernandez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny Hernandez’s motion to appoint counsel, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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
2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished