Willie Caldwell v. Michael McCall

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:12-cv-02619-SB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999254146]. Mailed to: Willie Joe Caldwell. [13-7209]

Appeal: 13-7209

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/06/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7209

WILLIE JOE CALDWELL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
MICHAEL MCCALL,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District
Judge. (4:12-cv-02619-SB)

Submitted:

November 21, 2013

Decided:

December 6, 2013

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Joe Caldwell, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7209

Doc: 5

Filed: 12/06/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Willie

Joe

Caldwell

seeks

to

appeal

the

district

court’s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the
denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
not

appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

or

The order is

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

appealability

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

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

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 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Caldwell has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-7209

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 12/06/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3