Filed: Oct. 04, 2010
Latest Update: Feb. 21, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6293 GREGORY GREEN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:09-cv-00840-RBH) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6293 GREGORY GREEN, Petitioner – Appellant, v. GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (0:09-cv-00840-RBH) Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010 Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se...
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6293
GREGORY GREEN,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GREGORY KNOWLIN, Warden,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(0:09-cv-00840-RBH)
Submitted: September 28, 2010 Decided: October 4, 2010
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Gregory Green, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Green 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) (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 Green has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Green’s motion to expedite, deny a
certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3