Ajaron Gamble v. Warden, Lee Correctional Inst

Filing 920101230

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7448 AJARON GAMBLE, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent ­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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 court's

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 appealability 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). will not issue absent "a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484

prisoner

demonstrating district debatable

reasonable of v.

jurists the

find

court's or

assessment Slack

constitutional 529 U.S.

wrong.

McDaniel,

(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. at 484-85. that We have independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and

conclude

Gamble

requisite

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. 2
*

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

3