Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

FRANKLIN v. CLARKE, 11-6728. (2011)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: infco20111122178 Visitors: 17
Filed: Nov. 22, 2011
Latest Update: Nov. 22, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: David Franklin seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right
More

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

David Franklin seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 (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 Franklin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Franklin's motions for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Franklin's motion for a transcript at government expense and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer