[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
28 views3 pages

Smith v. Stevenson, 4th Cir. (2011)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Paul Smith's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denial of reconsideration. The court determined that Smith did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismissed Smith's appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
28 views3 pages

Smith v. Stevenson, 4th Cir. (2011)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Paul Smith's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus and denial of reconsideration. The court determined that Smith did not make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability. As such, the court dismissed Smith's appeal without oral argument.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6837

PAUL SMITH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden BRCI,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Greenville.
Margaret B. Seymour, District
Judge. (6:09-cv-00456-MBS)

Submitted:

January 20, 2011

Decided:

February 11, 2011

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Paul Smith, Appellant Pro Se.


Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney
General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Paul Smith seeks to appeal the district courts orders
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition, and denying
reconsideration.
justice

or

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).


not

issue

absent

constitutional right.

certificate

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability will

substantial

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record


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

You might also like