Keith Sears v. Susan White

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999606860-2]; granting Motion to amend/correct [999602971-2], granting Motion to amend/correct [999641720-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999615094-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999626416-2] Originating case number: 5:14-hc-02230-D Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999684705]. Mailed to: Keith Sears. [15-6903]

Appeal: 15-6903

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6903

KEITH JAMES SEARS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN WHITE,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02230-D)

Submitted:

October 20, 2015

Decided:

October 23, 2015

Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6903

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Keith

James

order dismissing

Sears
his

seeks

28

to

U.S.C.

appeal
§ 2254

unauthorized, successive petition.
unless

a

circuit

justice
See

certificate

appealability

district

(2012)

petition

court’s
as

an

The order is not appealable

judge

appealability.
of

28

or

the

U.S.C.

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
will

not

(2012).

issue

absent

of
A
“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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
Sears has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, although

we grant Sears’ motions for leave to amend his informal brief to
add documentation and to amend his motion for a certificate of
appealability,

we

deny

Sears’

motions
2

for

a

certificate

of

Appeal: 15-6903

Doc: 23

Filed: 10/23/2015

Pg: 3 of 3

appealability and for the appointment of counsel, deny leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and dismiss this appeal.
We

dispense

contentions

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3