Terrell Flood v. Jon Ozmint

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00375-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998478643] [10-6579]

Terrell Flood v. Jon Ozmint

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6579 Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6579 TERRELL CY FLOOD, Petitioner ­ Appellant, v. JON OZMINT, Respondent ­ Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District Judge. (3:09-cv-00375-JFA) Submitted: November 30, 2010 Decided: December 6, 2010

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrell CY Flood, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6579 Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Terrell CY Flood seeks to appeal the district court's order 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. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Flood 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

2

Case: 10-6579 Document: 7

Date Filed: 12/06/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3