Mark Stephens v. Robert Jone

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999454804-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999454806-2], updating certificate of appealability status, denied. Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02151-D. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999537561]. Mailed to: Appellant. [14-7354]

Appeal: 14-7354

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7354

MARK DANIEL STEPHENS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT JONES,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:13-hc-02151-D)

Submitted:

January 28, 2015

Decided:

March 2, 2015

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Daniel Stephens, Appellant Pro Se.
Jess D. Mekeel, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7354

Doc: 19

Filed: 03/02/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark
court’s

Daniel

order

denying

petition.
or

judge

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Stephens

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 Stephens 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 deny the motion for

transcripts at the government's expense and we dispense with
oral

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

contentions

are

Appeal: 14-7354

Doc: 19

adequately

Filed: 03/02/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

the

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3