Joe Fulgham v. None | Court Opinion

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7429

JOE LEE FULGHAM,

Petitioner – Appellant,

NONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:12-cv-00445-AWA-TEM)

Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016

Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues

a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)

(2012). 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) (2012). 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

Fulgham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability, deny Fulgham’s motion to appoint counsel, and

dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

2 materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Opinions