Jackie Cearley v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999463326-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00397-WO-LPA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999556085]. Mailed to: Jackie Ray Cearley. [14-7433]

Appeal: 14-7433

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7433

JACKIE RAY CEARLEY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:09-cv-00397-WO-LPA)

Submitted:

February 24, 2015

Decided:

March 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jackie Ray Cearley, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Babb, Assistant
Attorney General, Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7433

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jackie Ray Cearley seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See

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
Cearley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

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

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 14-7433

Doc: 12

Filed: 03/31/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3