Roberson v. Padula , 210 F. App'x 272 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7328
    TYRONE LAMAR ROBERSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    A.J. PADULA, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney
    General of the State of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.   Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (8:06-cv-01247-CMC)
    Submitted: December 14, 2006              Decided:   December 20, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Tyrone Lamar Roberson, Appellant Pro Se
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Tyrone     Lamar   Roberson     seeks   to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    The order is not appealable 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
    any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
    is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the district court is likewise debatable.                Miller-El v. Cockrell,
    
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Roberson 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: 06-7328

Citation Numbers: 210 F. App'x 272

Judges: Michael, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024