Siddhanth Sharma v. Unknown Respondent

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999900294-2] Originating case number: 5:15-hc-02209-BO Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999999059]. Mailed to: Siddhanth Sharma MORRISON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION P. O. Box 169 Hoffman, NC 28347-0000. [16-6520]

Appeal: 16-6520

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/06/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6520

SIDDHANTH SHARMA,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNKNOWN RESPONDENT; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:15-hc-02209-BO)

Submitted:

December 30, 2016

Decided:

January 6, 2017

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Siddhanth Sharma, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6520

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/06/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Siddhanth Sharma, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2012) petition challenging his pretrial detention.

The order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

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
Sharma’s petition is moot because he was convicted after filing
his petition.

See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th

Cir. 2015) (per curiam).
appealability,

deny

leave

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
to

proceed
2

in

forma

pauperis,

and

Appeal: 16-6520

Doc: 22

Filed: 01/06/2017

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

Pg: 3 of 3

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3