Keith Sears v. Susan White, No. 15-6903 (4th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-6903 KEITH JAMES SEARS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUSAN WHITE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-hc-02230-D) Submitted: October 20, 2015 Decided: October 23, 2015 Before MOTZ, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keith James Sears, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keith James order dismissing Sears his seeks 28 to U.S.C. appeal § 2254 unauthorized, successive petition. unless a circuit justice See certificate appealability district (2012) petition court’s as an The order is not appealable judge appealability. of 28 or the U.S.C. issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) will not (2012). issue absent of A “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 Sears has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Sears’ motions for leave to amend his informal brief to add documentation and to amend his motion for a certificate of appealability, we deny Sears’ motions 2 for a certificate of appealability and for the appointment of counsel, deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and dismiss this appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
