Smith v. Maynard ( 2003 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6470
MONTY JACKSON SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GARY D. MAYNARD, Director of South Carolina
Department of Corrections; CHARLES MOLONY
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-01-4374-25AJ)
Submitted: July 18, 2003 Decided: October 22, 2003
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Monty Jackson Smith, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Monty Jackson Smith, a state prisoner, 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 § 2254 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable of wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smith 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