David Rayfield v. Sandra Thoma

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status, updating fee code Originating case number: 5:11-hc-02060-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998881909]. Mailed to: David William Rayfield. [12-6330]

Appeal: 12-6330

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6330

DAVID WILLIAM RAYFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SANDRA THOMAS,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
ALVIN KELLER; ROBERT C. LEWIS,
Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02060-F)

Submitted:

June 21, 2012

Decided:

June 25, 2012

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David William Rayfield, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6330

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David William Rayfield seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Rayfield has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 12-6330

Doc: 15

Filed: 06/25/2012

Pg: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3