Case ID: f-appx_63/html/0763-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Jeffery HARLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Gary Maynard, Director; Charlie Condon, Attorney General of the State of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees.
    No. 03-6436.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted May 15, 2003.
    Decided May 28, 2003.
    Jeffery Harley, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, Riley, Pope & Laney, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Jeffery Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny relief on Harley’s habeas petition, in which Harley alleged the South Carolina Department of Corrections miscalculated his sentence. Harley raised this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The district court reviewed Harley’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). The district court entered an order denying Harley relief based on his failure to exhaust state remedies.

Harley cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1039, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Harley 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 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED.