Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07869/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07869-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7869

WILLIE J. HUFF, a/k/a Willie James Huff, a/k/a S Willie J. 

Huff,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-02058-PMD)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie J. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7869 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie J. Huff 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 Huff has not made the requisite showing. 

Accordingly, we deny Huff’s motion to stay, deny a certificate 

of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

Appeal: 09-7869 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7869 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/25/2010 Pg: 3 of 3