UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6574
MALCOLM E. PFEIFFER-EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; UNITED STATES CONGRESS; UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:11-hc-02061-BO)
Submitted: July 26, 2012 Decided: August 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Malcolm E. Pfeiffer-El, a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
“Averment of Jurisdiction.” Because Pfeiffer-El is a state
prisoner, and the pleading was appropriately docketed as one
arising under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), the district court’s
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
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) (2006). 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 Pfeiffer-El has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave
2
to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 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