William Floyd v. Robert Stevenson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998599264-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00924-JFA Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998707916]. Mailed to: appellant. [11-6659]

Appeal: 11-6659

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/25/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6659

WILLIAM PATRICK FLOYD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden Broad River,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00924-JFA)

Submitted:

October 18, 2011

Before KING and
Circuit Judge.

SHEDD,

Circuit

Decided:

Judges,

and

October 25, 2011

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Patrick Floyd, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Melody Jane Brown, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6659

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/25/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s

orders

Patrick

adopting

Floyd
the

seeks

to

appeal

recommendation

of

the

the

district

magistrate

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend.
The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

constitutional

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

right.”

28

showing
U.S.C.

of

the

denial

§ 2253(c)(2).

of

When

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

claims is debatable or wrong.
484

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

Cockrell,

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

Accordingly,

that
we

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record
Floyd

deny

has

not

the

requisite

motion

Floyd’s

made

for

a

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

showing.

certificate

of

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 11-6659

Document: 12

Date Filed: 10/25/2011

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3