Steven Dixon Prentice v. State of North Carolina; United States of America

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7678
STEVEN DIXON PRENTICE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles, District Judge. (1:16-cv-00621-CCE-JEP)
Submitted: April 27, 2017 Decided: May 4, 2017
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Dixon Prentice, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Steven Dixon Prentice seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his motion construed as
one under both 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A), (B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” Id. § 2253(c)(2). 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. See Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000);see also 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. See Slack, 529 U.S. at 484–85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Prentice has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 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

-- 2 of 2 --