Parker v. Cooper , 333 F. App'x 732 ( 2009 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-6993
    KEVIN RAY PARKER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ROY COOPER,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
    District Judge. (5:08-hc-02142-D)
    Submitted:    September 24, 2009            Decided:   October 14, 2009
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kevin Ray Parker, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Kevin Ray Parker 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) (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).        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.                      See 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 Parker
    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
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-6993

Citation Numbers: 333 F. App'x 732

Judges: King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 10/14/2009

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023