Shaheen Cabbagestalk v. Warden J. McFadden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6360
SHAHEEN CABBAGESTALK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. MCFADDEN
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (5:14-cv-03771-RMG)
Submitted: July 28, 2016 Decided: August 1, 2016
Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shaheen Cabbagestalk, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Shaheen Cabbagestalk seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying his motions for reconsideration of the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)
petition and denying his motion to change venue as moot. The
orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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
Cabbagestalk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 --