Andrew Mack v. Warden Trenton CI

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999948628-2]; denying Motion for transcript at government expense [999948628-3] Originating case number: 4:16-cv-00838-HMH Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [1000038056]. Mailed to: A Mack. [16-7307]

Appeal: 16-7307

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7307

ANDREW JAMMIE MACK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:16-cv-00838-HMH)

Submitted:

February 22, 2017

Decided:

March 8, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Jammie Mack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7307

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/08/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Andrew Jammie Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

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
Mack has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

the motion to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government
expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the
appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2

Appeal: 16-7307

legal
before

Doc: 5

Filed: 03/08/2017

contentions
this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3