Spann v. Williams

Filing 58

ORDER denying 56 Motion for Certificate of Appealability Signed by Honorable J Michelle Childs on 08/02/2022.(abam, )

8:21-cv-00892-JMC

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 58

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
ANDERSON/GREENWOOD DIVISION
Touriarnold Spann,

)
)
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
)
C. Williams, Warden,
)
)
Respondent.
)
____________________________________)

Civil Action No.: 8:21-cv-00892-JMC

ORDER

Petitioner Touriarnold Spann filed the instant action against Respondent C. Williams,
Warden, seeking a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. (ECF No. 1.) On March
22, 2022, the court entered an Order and Opinion (ECF No. 53) denying Spann’s Petition. (ECF
No. 53.)
This matter is before the court on Spann’s Motion for Certificate of Appealability (ECF
No. 56). The court observes that the law governing certificates of appealability provides that:
(c)(2) A certificate of appealability may issue . . . only if the applicant has made a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
(c)(3) The certificate of appealability . . . shall indicate which specific issue or
issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists
would find this court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See, e.g., Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). In this matter, Petitioner Touriarnold Spann did not meet the
legal standard for the issuance of a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court DENIES
Spann’s Motion for a Certificate of Appealability. (ECF No. 56.)

1

8:21-cv-00892-JMC

Date Filed 08/02/22

Entry Number 58

Page 2 of 2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

United States District Judge
August 2, 2022
Columbia, South Carolina

2