Edgar Birch v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional I

Filing 920080626

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6224

EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and GREENVILLE COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents.

No. 08-6239

EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and

SOUTH CAROLINA PICKENS COUNTY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondents.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (2:07-cv-03207-GRA; 2:07-cv-03206-GRA)

Submitted:

June 9, 2008

Decided:

June 26, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edgar Joseph Birch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM: Edgar Joseph Birch seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petitions. or judge

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 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 records and conclude that Birch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. 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

- 3 -