Dulaine Lothrarp v. Nora Hunt

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7941
DULAINE LOTHRARP,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NORA HUNT; ROY COOPER, Attorney General for
State of North Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-568)
Submitted: June 22, 2005 Decided: July 7, 2005
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Noell Peter Tin, TIN, FULTON, GREENE & OWEN, P.L.L.C., Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*It appears appellant’s name is actually spelled “Lotharp.”
We have maintained the spelling under which the case was docketed
in the district court.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Dulaine Lothrarp, * a North Carolina prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition
filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken
from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). Lothrarp argues, by counsel, that the
district court incorrectly concluded that he had failed to exhaust
his present federal claim under In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970),
in state court.
We have independently reviewed the record, including the
detailed record of the state court appellate proceedings, and we
conclude that Lothrarp has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --