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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. . Mailed to: Alexander Katic. [15-6536]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALEXANDER KATIC, a/k/a Thomas A. Hanford,
Petitioner - Appellant,
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)
August 27, 2015
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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,
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Alexander Katic seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
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).
When the district court denies
(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.
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.
We dispense with
Pg: 3 of 3
argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?