Ramon Cunningham v. Frank Perry

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00404-FDW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999778112]. Mailed to: Ramon Deangelo Cunningham LANESBORO CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 280 Polkton, NC 28135-0000. [15-7482]

Appeal: 15-7482

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7482

RAMON DEANGELO CUNNINGHAM,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK PERRY,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00404-FDW)

Submitted:

March 17, 2016

Decided:

March 21, 2016

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ramon Deangelo Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se.
Peter Andrew
Regulski, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7482

Doc: 10

Filed: 03/21/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ramon
court’s

Deangelo

order

petition.

Cunningham

denying

relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

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
Cunningham has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-7482

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 03/21/2016

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3