Randall Ballard v. Sandra Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00063-RJC. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998779135]. Mailed to: Randall Ballard. [11-7222]

Appeal: 11-7222

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7222

RANDALL H. BALLARD,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
SANDRA THOMAS,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:11-cv-00063-RJC)

Submitted:

January 30, 2012

Decided:

February 2, 2012

Before WILKINSON, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randall H. Ballard, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7222

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 2 of 3

H.

to

appeal

the

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

PER CURIAM:
Randall
court’s

order

petition.

Ballard

denying

relief

seeks
on

his

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

district

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Ballard 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

2

Appeal: 11-7222

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/02/2012

Page: 3 of 3

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3