Mark Earl Bell v. Travis Outlaw

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6292
MARK EARL BELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
TRAVIS OUTLAW,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan,
Chief District Judge. (5:07-hc-02227-FL)
Submitted: October 19, 2009 Decided: November 5, 2009
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Earl Bell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

PER CURIAM:
Mark Earl Bell seeks to appeal the district court’s
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his
subsequent motion for reconsideration. On appeal, Bell has
failed to challenge the district court’s basis for denying the
motion for reconsideration; therefore, we find that he has
forfeited appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b)
(limiting review to issues raised in the informal brief on
appeal).
The district court’s order dismissing Bell’s § 2254
petition is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. §
2253(c)(1) (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). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537
U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We
have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bell
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
2

-- 2 of 3 --

3
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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --