Joe Fulgham v. None

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [999755151]. Mailed to: Joe Lee Fulgham. [15-7429]

Appeal: 15-7429

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7429

JOE LEE FULGHAM,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7429

Doc: 26

Filed: 02/16/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

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

(2012).

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

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).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

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
Fulgham has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

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

deny

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

Fulgham’s

motion

to

appoint

counsel,

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are
2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 15-7429

Doc: 26

materials

before

Filed: 02/16/2016

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.

DISMISSED

3