Case Name: Joe Lee FULGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NONE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-16
Citations: 633 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 15-7429
Parties: Joe Lee FULGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NONE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
Joe Lee FULGHAM, Petitioner-Appellant, v. NONE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 15-7429.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 26, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 16, 2016.
Joe Lee Fulgham, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joe Lee Fulgham seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit jus tice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certifícate 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Fulgham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, deny a certificate of appealability, deny Fulgham's motion to appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal. 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. .