Keith Sears v. Susan White, No. 16-6034 (4th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6034 KEITH JAMES SEARS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. SUSAN WHITE, Respondent - Appellee.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: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016 Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Sears seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying the various postjudgment motions Sears filed in his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 appealable unless certificate of (2012). a (2012) proceeding. circuit justice appealability. See 28 The or order judge U.S.C. is issues not a § 2253(c)(1)(A) 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). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court’s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies 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’ motion to amend his informal brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. 2 We also deny Sears’ motion for appointment of counsel. 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
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.
