UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6219
LAVELLE AULTMAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6744
LAVELLE AULTMAN, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-401)
Submitted: August 18, 2005 Decided: August 24, 2005
Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lavelle Aultman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Lavelle Aultman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying his motion to amend and denying relief on
his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by
demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Aultman has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny Aultman’s motions for certificate of
appealability, expansion of certificate of appealability, and leave
to proceed in forma pauperis. We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in
the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -