Dennis Vandyke v. North Carolina State
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00114-RJC Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998954448]. Mailed to: appellant. [12-7308]
Appeal: 12-7308
Doc: 6
Filed: 10/09/2012
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7308
DENNIS ROGER VANDYKE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA
COURT,
STATE;
CHRIS
FRANCIS,
Sheriff;
SUPERIOR
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:12-cv-00114-RJC)
Submitted:
September 26, 2012
Decided:
October 9, 2012
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis Roger Vandyke, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 12-7308
Doc: 6
Filed: 10/09/2012
Pg: 2 of 3
Roger
seeks
PER CURIAM:
Dennis
court’s
order
petition.
denying
Vandyke
relief
on
to
his
28
appeal
U.S.C.
district
§ 2254
(2006)
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue
the
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Vandyke has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We
dispense
with
oral
argument
2
because
the
facts
and
legal
Appeal: 12-7308
Doc: 6
Filed: 10/09/2012
Pg: 3 of 3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?