Opinion
No. 13-7284 No. 13-7286
2013-10-21
BASIL W. AKBAR, a/k/a Melvin T. Brown, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. BASIL W. AKBAR, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MICHAEL MCCALL, Respondent - Appellee.
Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. David C. Norton, District Judge. (0:13-cv-00549-DCN; 0:13-cv-00702-DCN) Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Basil Akbar, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Basil Akbar seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as unauthorized Akbar's successive 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petitions. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Akbar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. 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