Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06034/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06034-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Keith James Sears
Appellant
Susan White
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6034

KEITH JAMES SEARS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUSAN WHITE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III,

Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02230-D)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6034 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith James Sears seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying the various postjudgment motions Sears filed in 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceeding. The order is not 

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 

certificate of appealability. See 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 

Sears has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although 

we grant Sears’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed on appeal in 

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Sears’ 

Appeal: 16-6034 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

motion for appointment of counsel. 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: 16-6034 Doc: 17 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3