UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-7429
JOE LEE FULGHAM,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
NONE,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:12-cv-00445-AWA-TEM)
Submitted: January 26, 2016 Decided: February 16, 2016
Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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
Fulgham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of
appealability, deny Fulgham’s motion to appoint counsel, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3