Case ID: f-appx_380/html/0259-02.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

Zachary Vincent MILLER, a/k/a Zachary V. Miller, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Levern COHEN, Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 09-8134.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: April 12, 2010.
    Decided: June 2, 2010.
    Zachary Vincent Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Office of The Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, Donald John Zel-enka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Vincent Miller seeks a certificate of appealability to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s application for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.