Filed: Jun. 01, 2011
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6187 HARTFORD R. BEST, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (2:10-cv-01381-RBH) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hartford R. Best, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubl
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 11-6187 HARTFORD R. BEST, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON, Respondent – Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (2:10-cv-01381-RBH) Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011 Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Hartford R. Best, Appellant Pro Se. Unpubli..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6187
HARTFORD R. BEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN MCKITHER BODISON,
Respondent – Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, District
Judge. (2:10-cv-01381-RBH)
Submitted: May 26, 2011 Decided: June 1, 2011
Before KING, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Hartford R. Best, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Hartford R. Best seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing Best’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely
filed. 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 Best has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3