Jerry L. Cary, Sr. v. Eddie Pearson, No. 15-7951 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7951 JERRY L. CARY, SR., Petitioner – Appellant, v. EDDIE PEARSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 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 dispense with contentions are oral argument adequately because presented in the the facts and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
