Anthony Townsend v. Renoice Stancil , 534 F. App'x 203 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6398
    ANTHONY TOWNSEND,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RENOICE STANCIL,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:12-hc-02086-BO)
    Submitted:   July 18, 2013                    Decided:    July 23, 2013
    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Anthony Townsend, Appellant       Pro Se.      Mary      Carla Hollis,
    Assistant Attorney  General,       Raleigh,   North      Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony Townsend seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) 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) (2006).             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) (2006).                   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 Townsend has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly,
    we deny Townsend’s motion for appointment of counsel, deny leave
    to     proceed      in     forma     pauperis,           deny     a     certificate        of
    appealability, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before this court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6398

Citation Numbers: 534 F. App'x 203

Judges: Motz, Per Curiam, Shedd, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/23/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023