Edward Thorpe v. State of North Carolina ( 2020 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6133
    EDWARD THORPE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief Judge. (5:18-hc-002233-BO)
    Submitted: June 30, 2020                                          Decided: August 27, 2020
    Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Edward Thorpe, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Edward Thorpe seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2018) 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)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,
    a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
    district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
    Davis, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 
    565 U.S. 134
    , 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000)).
    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Thorpe has not made
    the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 20-6133

Filed Date: 8/27/2020

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 9/22/2020