Mallard v. Superintendent , 161 F. App'x 307 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7569
    JAMES MALLARD,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SUPERINTENDENT PERLMAN,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Malcolm J. Howard,
    District Judge. (CA-05-436)
    Submitted:   December 21, 2005            Decided:   January 11, 2006
    Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Mallard, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Mallard moves for a certificate of appealability,
    seeking    review    of   the    district     court's      order    dismissing     as
    successive his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).                       An
    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 for claims addressed by a district
    court     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 both 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
    ,
    338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Mallard has not made the
    requisite     showing.       Accordingly,      we    deny    the    motion   for    a
    certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, and dismiss the 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
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7569

Citation Numbers: 161 F. App'x 307

Judges: Gregory, King, Per Curiam, Williams

Filed Date: 1/11/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023