UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7667
KEITH JAMES SEARS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN WHITE,
Respondent – Appellee,
and
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-hc-02066-F)
Submitted: February 27, 2014 Decided: March 4, 2014
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith James Sears 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. See 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 Sears has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Sears’ motion for a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
grant Sears’ motions to file an oversized informal brief and to
file an amended informal brief. We dispense with oral argument
2
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3