Yawn v. White

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6717
FELTON YAWN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIAM WHITE, Warden; HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER,
Attorney General for South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (CA-04-861-4-23-BH)
Submitted: September 30, 2005 Decided: October 19, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felton Yawn, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
General, Derrick K. McFarland, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Felton Yawn seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his habeas 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 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,
336 (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 Yawn has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Yawn’s request
for transcripts. 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 -