Case Name: Basil AKBAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-07
Citations: 404 F. App'x 733
Docket Number: No. 10-7266
Parties: Basil AKBAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 404
Pages: 733–734

Head Matter:
Basil AKBAR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony J. PADULA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-7266.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 30, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 7, 2010.
Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Basil Akbar seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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). 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 Akbar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 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.