Keith Frazier v. State of North Carolina

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999558968-2]. Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02010-F. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999640518]. Mailed to: Appellant. [15-6360]

Appeal: 15-6360

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6360

KEITH ERVIN FRAZIER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:13-hc-02010-F)

Submitted:

July 30, 2015

Decided:

August 14, 2015

Before SHEDD, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Ervin Frazier, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6360

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith Ervin Frazier seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

dismissing

petition

and

denying

reconsideration.
justice

or

as

untimely

his

28

his

R.

Civ.

Fed.

U.S.C.
P.

§

2254

59(e)

(2012)

motion

for

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,
369 (4th Cir. 2004).
issue

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.

2

Slack,

Appeal: 15-6360

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/14/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Frazier 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 dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

*

Because Frazier’s informal brief does not challenge the
bases for the district court’s dispositions, but instead argues
the merits of his petition, Frazier has forfeited appellate
review of the court’s orders. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

3