Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06360/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06360-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6360

SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. MCFADDEN

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG)

Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6360 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying his motions for reconsideration of the district 

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition and denying his motion to change venue as moot. The 

orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th 

Cir. 2004). 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 

Cabbagestalk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 

Appeal: 16-6360 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 16-6360 Doc: 7 Filed: 08/01/2016 Pg: 3 of 3