Jerry L. Cary, Sr. v. Eddie Pearson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999764265-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999738919-2]; granting Motion to amend/correct [999764263-2]; denying Motion for bail/release pending appeal (Local Rule 9(a) and (b)) [999773727-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999725543-2] Originating case number: 2:15-cv-00372-RAJ-LRL Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999837065]. Mailed to: Jerry L. Cary Sr. GREENSVILLE CORRECTIONAL CENTER 901 Corrections Way Route 1, Box 205 Jarratt, VA 23870-9614. [15-7951]

Appeal: 15-7951

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7951

JERRY L. CARY, SR.,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
EDDIE PEARSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (2:15-cv-00372-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted:

May 26, 2016

Decided:

May 31, 2016

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit
Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry L. Cary, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7951

Doc: 21

Filed: 05/31/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jerry L. Cary, Sr., 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
Cary has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

Cary’s motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.

We grant

Cary’s motion to amend his informal brief and deny his motions
for

appointment

of

counsel

and
2

release

pending

appeal.

We

Appeal: 15-7951

Doc: 21

dispense

with

contentions

are

Filed: 05/31/2016

oral

argument

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

because

presented

in

the
the

facts

and

legal

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3