Alexander Katic v. Frank Perry


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-6536 Doc: 23 Filed: 09/01/2015 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6536 ALEXANDER KATIC, a/k/a Thomas A. Hanford, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRANK PERRY, Respondent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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?