Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Aultman v. State of NC, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    25 views3 pages
    This document summarizes the dismissal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Lavelle Aultman Jr.'s appeals of the district court's denial of his motion to amend and denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Aultman did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, so it denied his motions for a certificate of appealability, expansion of the certificate, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeals.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6219

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes the dismissal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Lavelle Aultman Jr.'s appeals of the district court's denial of his motion to amend and denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Aultman did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, so it denied his motions for a certificate of appealability, expansion of the certificate, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeals.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    25 views3 pages

    Aultman v. State of NC, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes the dismissal by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit of Lavelle Aultman Jr.'s appeals of the district court's denial of his motion to amend and denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Court of Appeals independently reviewed the record and determined that Aultman did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, so it denied his motions for a certificate of appealability, expansion of the certificate, and leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismissed the appeals.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6219

    LAVELLE AULTMAN, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    No. 05-6744

    LAVELLE AULTMAN, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-401)

    Submitted:

    August 18, 2005

    Decided:

    August 24, 2005

    Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lavelle Aultman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


    Sandra Wallace-Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Lavelle

    Aultman,

    Jr.,

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders denying his motion to amend and denying relief on


    his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    not

    appealable

    unless

    circuit

    certificate of appealability.

    justice

    or

    The orders are


    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    this

    would

    and

    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the


    Aultman

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing. Accordingly, we deny Aultmans motions for certificate of


    appealability, expansion of certificate of appealability, and leave
    to proceed in forma pauperis.

    We dispense with oral argument

    because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in


    the materials before the court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like