UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6903
KEITH JAMES SEARS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
SUSAN WHITE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02230-D)
Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015
Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith James Sears seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as an
unauthorized, successive 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, although
we grant Sears’ motions for leave to amend his informal brief to
add documentation and to amend his motion for a certificate of
appealability, we deny Sears’ motions for a certificate of
2
appealability and for the appointment of counsel, deny leave to
proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and dismiss this 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
3