Cassell v. Harkleroad , 218 F. App'x 277 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7834
    CHARLES M. CASSELL, III,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SIDNEY HARKLEROAD,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
    Senior District Judge. (5:04-cv-00067)
    Submitted: February 15, 2007              Decided:   February 23, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Charles M. Cassell, III, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Charles M. Cassell, III seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
    judge     issues   a   certificate    of     appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).        A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.          Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).          We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cassell 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 the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    *
    Appellee’s motion to appoint Cassell as counsel for himself
    under the Criminal Justice Act is denied.
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7834

Citation Numbers: 218 F. App'x 277

Judges: Duncan, King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 2/23/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023