Green v. South Carolina , 82 F. App'x 79 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7150
    RODERICK L. GREEN, a/k/a Lamont Brown,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA;         CHARLES   MOLONY
    CONDON, Attorney General,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-02-4217-3-13BI)
    Submitted:   November 19, 2003             Decided:   December 4, 2003
    Before WILKINSON and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Roderick L. Green, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, OFFICE OF
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Roderick Green seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
    proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
    jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    337 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).         We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Green 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 before the court and argument would not
    aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-7150

Citation Numbers: 82 F. App'x 79

Judges: Wilkinson, Gregory, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/4/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024