Charles Mewborn v. Lewis Smith, No. 08-7637 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7637 CHARLES MEWBORN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEWIS SMITH, Superintendent Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:07-hc-02102-BO) Submitted: December 16, 2008 Decided: December 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Charles Mewborn, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Charles Mewborn seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mewborn has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.