Timothy Crandell v. Kevin Barnes ( 2018 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6971
TIMOTHY CRANDELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
KEVIN BARNES, Superintendent, Department of Public Safety; ERIK A.
HOOKS,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:17-hc-02116-BO)
Submitted: December 18, 2018 Decided: December 21, 2018
Before AGEE, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Timothy Crandell, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Crandell 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 Crandell 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2