Carpenter v. Harkleroad, No. 06-6022 (4th Cir. 2006)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6022 KAM RICHARD CARPENTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (CA-03-34) Submitted: May 19, 2006 Decided: June 14, 2006 Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kam Richard Carpenter, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). PER CURIAM: Kam appealability, Richard Carpenter seeking review moves of for the a certificate district court's of order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit appealability. justice or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). certificate of A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent a substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). of a A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Carpenter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. for a 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 - 2 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.