Joe Fulgham v. None
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999699024-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999668566-2], updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 2:12-cv-00445-AWA-TEM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: Joe Lee Fulgham. [15-7429]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOE LEE FULGHAM,
Petitioner – Appellant,
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)
January 26, 2016
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
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
(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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Fulgham has not made the requisite showing.
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the
Pg: 3 of 3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?