Alexander Katic v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999570278-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999570292-2], denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999567474-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999570287-2]; denying Motion for other relief [999581246-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:13-hc-02213-F Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999651520]. Mailed to: Alexander Katic. [15-6536]

Appeal: 15-6536

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6536

ALEXANDER KATIC, a/k/a Thomas A. Hanford,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
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-02213-F)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

September 1, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander Katic, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6536

Doc: 23

Filed: 09/01/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alexander Katic 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 of appealability.
(2012).

See 28 U.S.C. § 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

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

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
Katic has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Katic’s motions for appointment of counsel, a transcript at the
government’s expense, an evidentiary hearing, and a certificate
of appealability, and we dismiss the appeal.
oral

argument

because

the

facts
2

and

legal

We dispense with
contentions

are

Appeal: 15-6536

Doc: 23

adequately

Filed: 09/01/2015

presented

in

the

Pg: 3 of 3

materials

before

this

court

and

argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3