Case Name: Shaheen CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-01
Citations: 667 F. App'x 430
Docket Number: No. 16-6360
Parties: Shaheen CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 667
Pages: 430–430

Head Matter:
Shaheen CABBAGESTALK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden J. MCFADDEN, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 16-6360
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2016
Decided: August 1, 2016
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 ap-pealability. 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, 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 Cabbagestalk 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED