Flood v. Ozmint , 404 F. App'x 710 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6579
    TERRELL CY FLOOD,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    JON OZMINT,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
    Judge. (3:09-cv-00375-JFA)
    Submitted:    November 30, 2010            Decided:   December 6, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terrell CY Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Terrell CY Flood seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.
    The order 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).                 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    Flood    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 adequately presented in the materials
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6579

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 710

Judges: Wilkinson, Keenan, Wynn

Filed Date: 12/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024