Michael King v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00296-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385611]. Mailed to: King. [14-6613]

Appeal: 14-6613

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6613

MICHAEL RAY KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:13-cv-00296-FDW)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Ray King, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-6613

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Michael Ray King seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying his motion to appoint counsel and denying relief
on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
appealable

unless

certificate

of

(2012).

a

circuit

justice

appealability.

See

28

The orders are not
or

judge

U.S.C.

issues

a

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies
satisfies

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

Slack

this

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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 King 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: 14-6613

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 06/30/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3