Jamel Alexandrette v. Joseph McFadden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999381090-2] Originating case number: 2:12-cv-03304-DCN Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999462031]. Mailed to: Alexandrette. [14-6744]

Appeal: 14-6744

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6744

JAMEL ALEXANDRETTE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
(2:12-cv-03304-DCN)

Submitted:

October 21, 2014

Decided:

October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jamel Alexandrette, Appellant Pro Se. Brendan McDonald, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6744

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Jamel
court’s
judge

order
and

petition.
or

judge

Alexandrette
accepting

denying

relief

to

appeal

recommendation

on

his

28

of

U.S.C.

the
the
§

district
magistrate

2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

seeks

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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.

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

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that

Alexandrette

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny Alexandrette’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2

Appeal: 14-6744

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/24/2014

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3