Aultman v. North Carolina

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-6219 LAVELLE AULTMAN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent -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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -