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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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
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?