Court Opinion

ID: 4248331
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-02-26 20:00:30.609058+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:10.302725
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7239

KARREEM TISLAM JABAR WILEY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,

                    Respondent - Appellee,

             and

ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,

                    Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02262-JMC)

Submitted: February 22, 2018                               Decided: February 26, 2018

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney
General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.    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 Wiley 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

                                             3