Sidney Evans, III v. Brad Perritt

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999662820-2] Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02074-FL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999750762]. Mailed to: Evans. [15-7326]

Appeal: 15-7326

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7326

SIDNEY EVANS, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRAD PERRITT,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:14-hc-02074-FL)

Submitted:

January 28, 2016

Decided:

February 8, 2016

Before KEENAN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sidney Evans, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-7326

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Sidney Evans, III, 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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Evans 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: 15-7326

Doc: 12

Filed: 02/08/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3