Alfutir Mayweather v. State of North Carolina
Alfutir Mayweather v. State of North Carolina
Opinion
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 18-6618
ALFUTIR KAREEM IDEEN MAYWEATHER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior District Judge. (5:16-hc-02251-BR)
Submitted: October 25, 2018 Decided: November 5, 2018
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Alfutir Kareem Ideen Mayweather, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Alfutir Kareem Ideen Mayweather seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his
28 U.S.C. § 2254(2012) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel,
529 U.S. 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 Mayweather has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
2
Reference
- Status
- Unpublished