Lawrence Wilder, Sr. v. New Hanover County Superior and District Court ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7038 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 22-7038
LAWRENCE VERLINE WILDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NEW HANOVER COUNTY SUPERIOR AND DISTRICT COURT; MAJOR D.
H. PRICE, Administrator NHC Jail; SECRETARY OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Richard E. Myers II, Chief District Judge. (5:22-hc-02001-M)
Submitted: June 22, 2023 Decided: June 26, 2023
Before HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lawrence Verline Wilder, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7038 Doc: 12 Filed: 06/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Lawrence Verline Wilder seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies. 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). 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). 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, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (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 Wilder 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