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

Gamble v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution, 4th Cir. (2010)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ajaron Gamble's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Gamble did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, while Gamble correctly asserted that his petition was timely filed, he did not state a debatable claim that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was denied. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the 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
18 views3 pages

Gamble v. Warden, Lee Correctional Institution, 4th Cir. (2010)

The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ajaron Gamble's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Gamble did not make the requisite showing to receive a certificate of appealability. Specifically, while Gamble correctly asserted that his petition was timely filed, he did not state a debatable claim that his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel was denied. Therefore, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the 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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-7448

AJARON GAMBLE,
Petitioner Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(3:07-cv-04049-HFF)

Submitted:

December 9, 2010

Decided:

December 30, 2010

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Christopher Mills, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant.


James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Ajaron

Gamble

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

courts

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.

The

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues


a certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

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

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


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

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

courts
or

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).


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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

that

We

have

Gamble

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

showing. *

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss


*

Although Gamble correctly asserts that his petition was


timely filed, he does not state a debatable claim of the denial
of his Sixth Amendment right to effective counsel.

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