David Dwight Raman, Jr. v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999598125-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999598126-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-00248-LCB-JEP Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999676316]. Mailed to: David Raman, Jr.. [15-6793]

Appeal: 15-6793

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6793

DAVID DWIGHT RAMAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.
Loretta Copeland
Biggs, District Judge. (1:14-cv-00248-LCB-JEP)

Submitted:

September 3, 2015

Decided:

October 13, 2015

Before KING, FLOYD, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David Dwight Raman, Jr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6793

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
David

Dwight

Raman,

Jr.,

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation to
deny 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.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

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
Raman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Raman’s motion for transcript at government expense, deny leave
to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis,

deny

appealability, and dismiss the appeal.
2

a

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

Appeal: 15-6793

Doc: 10

Filed: 10/13/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3