Basil Akbar v. Michael McCall , 543 F. App'x 340 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7284
BASIL W. AKBAR, a/k/a Melvin T. Brown,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 13-7286
BASIL W. AKBAR,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District
Judge. (0:13-cv-00549-DCN; 0:13-cv-00702-DCN)
Submitted: October 17, 2013 Decided: October 21, 2013
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Basil Akbar seeks to
appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and dismissing as unauthorized Akbar’s
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The order is not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
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) (2006). 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
(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.
at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Akbar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny the certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4