Anthony Mann v. Warden Cecelia Reynolds , 678 F. App'x 134 ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 16-6311
    ANTHONY L. MANN,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN CECELIA REYNOLDS,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard M. Gergel, District Judge.
    (0:15-cv-00163-RMG)
    Submitted:   November 29, 2016            Decided:   February 28, 2017
    Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
    Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, BLUME, NORRIS & FRANKLIN-BEST, LLC,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.     Donald John Zelenka,
    Senior Assistant Attorney General, Caroline M. Scrantom, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Anthony L. Mann seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
    relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) 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) (2012). 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
    Mann 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 contentions are
    2
    adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 16-6311

Citation Numbers: 678 F. App'x 134

Judges: Davis, Diaz, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 2/28/2017

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024