John Pate v. Roy Cooper
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999944567-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999944569-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999944571-2]. Originating case number: 1:16-cv-00086-FDW. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency . Mailed to: John E. Pate. [16-7341]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOHN E. PATE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville.
Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (1:16-cv-00086-FDW)
December 15, 2016
December 20, 2016
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John E. Pate, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
John E. Pate seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Pate has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Pate’s motions for a
certificate of appealability and to appoint counsel, and dismiss
We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
Pg: 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?