Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley v. Warden Larry Cartledge

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-7239
KARREEM TISLAM JABAR WILEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN LARRY CARTLEDGE,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
ATTORNEY GENERAL ALAN WILSON,
Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock
Hill. J. Michelle Childs, District Judge. (0:15-cv-02262-JMC)
Submitted: February 22, 2018 Decided: February 26, 2018
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Attorney
General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE

-- 1 of 3 --

2
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Karreem Tislam Jabar Wiley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting
the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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). When the district court denies relief on the
merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 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 Wiley has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. 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 of 3 --