Charles Carson v. NC Dept of Public Safety

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00074-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999426861]. Mailed to: Carson. [14-6514]

Appeal: 14-6514

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6514

CHARLES CARSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00074-FDW)

Submitted:

August 28, 2014

Decided:

September 2, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Carson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6514

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/02/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Charles Carson seeks to appeal the district court’s
order

dismissing

petition.
or

judge

as

untimely

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

his

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) (2012).

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 Carson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-6514

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 09/02/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3