Vang v. Ozmint , 421 F. App'x 293 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 11-6037
    JAMES VANG,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL
    INSTITUTION,
    Respondents – Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.     Richard Mark Gergel, District
    Judge. (0:08-cv-02829-RMG)
    Submitted:    March 31, 2011                 Decided:   April 6, 2011
    Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Vang, Appellant Pro Se.       Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    James Vang 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 (2006) petition and the court’s
    order denying Vang’s motion to reconsider.                              The orders are not
    appealable      unless           a    circuit         justice      or       judge     issues     a
    certificate of appealability.                  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).                        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        Vang       has    not       made   the        requisite      showing.
    Accordingly,       we      deny       Vang’s       motion       for     a     certificate      of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 11-6037

Citation Numbers: 421 F. App'x 293

Judges: Agee, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 4/6/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024