Siddhanth Sharma v. Unknown Respondent, No. 16-6520 (4th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6520 SIDDHANTH SHARMA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNKNOWN RESPONDENT; PAT MCCRORY; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02209-BO) Submitted: December 30, 2016 Decided: January 6, 2017 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Siddhanth Sharma, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Siddhanth Sharma, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition challenging his pretrial detention. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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 Sharma’s petition is moot because he was convicted after filing his petition. See Jackson v. Clements, 796 F.3d 841, 843 (7th Cir. 2015) (per curiam). appealability, deny leave Accordingly, we deny a certificate of to proceed 2 in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
