Patrick Booker v. McKither Bodison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01098-HMH. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998700203]. Mailed to: Patrick L. Booker. [11-6909]

Appeal: 11-6909

Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6909

PATRICK L. BOOKER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cv-01098-HMH)

Submitted:

October 6, 2011

Decided:

October 14, 2011

Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick L. Booker, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald John Zelenka,
Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6909

Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2011

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Patrick L. Booker seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and
the court’s order denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)
motion to alter or amend.

The orders are not appealable unless

a

or

judge

28

U.S.C.

circuit

justice

appealability.

See

certificate

appealability

of

issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)
will

not

of

(2006).

A

absent

“a

issue

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

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

satisfies

jurists

would

assessment

of

the

Slack

v.

McDaniel,

wrong.

this

standard

find

that

U.S.

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

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

Booker

independently
has

not

made

reviewed
the

record

requisite

and

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

Appeal: 11-6909

before

Document: 6

Date Filed: 10/14/2011

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3