Otto Normand v. B. Well

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999593823-2]. Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02256-BO. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999755066]. Mailed to: Otto Gary Normand. [15-6774]

Appeal: 15-6774

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6774

OTTO GARY NORMAND,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
B. WELLS, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02256-BO)

Submitted:

January 29, 2016

Decided:

February 16, 2016

Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Otto Gary Normand, Appellant Pro Se.
Roy Cooper, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6774

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Otto

Gary

Normand

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s

order denying as untimely 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
Normand 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

2

Appeal: 15-6774

Doc: 21

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3