Jason Twardzik v. North Carolina ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 20-6823
    JASON ROBERT TWARDZIK,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
    Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:19-hc-02269-FL)
    Submitted: June 24, 2021                                          Decided: June 28, 2021
    Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jason Robert Twardzik, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jason Robert Twardzik, a state pretrial detainee, seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     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). 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, 
    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 Twardzik 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: 20-6823

Filed Date: 6/28/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 6/28/2021