Willie Caldwell v. Michael McCall , 547 F. App'x 355 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7209
WILLIE JOE CALDWELL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (4:12-cv-02619-SB)
Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: December 6, 2013
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Joe Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Joe Caldwell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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 Caldwell 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3