Wasim Ata Bey v. John Kyplinski

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7975

WASIM ATA BEY, Erick Sealey,

Petitioner - Appellant,

JOHN R. KYPLINSKI, Superintendent, Virginia Peninsula
Regional Jail,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,
District Judge. (4:15-cv-00070-RAJ-LRL)

Submitted: May 18, 2016 Decided: May 20, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wasim Ata Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Chadwick Johnson, FRITH,
ANDERSON & PEAKE, PC, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

Wasim Ata Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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

Bey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny Bey’s motion to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED