Siddhanth Sharma v. Unknown Respondent


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]

Download PDF
Appeal: 16-6520 Doc: 22 Filed: 01/06/2017 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6520 SIDDHANTH SHARMA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN RESPONDENT; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

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?