Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08052/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08052-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Askia Muhammad McAlister
Appellant
S. Thomas
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8052

ASKIA MUHAMMAD MCALISTER,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

S. THOMAS, Superintendent,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, 

Chief District Judge. (5:08-hc-02008-FL)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 27, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Askia Muhammad McAlister, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe 

DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8052 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Askia Muhammad McAlister seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

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) (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). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that 

McAlister has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

deny a certificate of appealability 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

Appeal: 09-8052 Doc: 11 Filed: 04/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2