Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06602/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06602-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6602

BRIAN DANIELS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ANTHONY J. PADULA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (0:09-cv-00755-PMD)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF THE 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6602 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Brian Daniels seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely 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 Daniels has not made the requisite showing.*

 * Our conclusion that Daniels has not made the showing 

necessary to warrant issuance of a certificate of appealability 

is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Holland v. 

Florida, No. 09-5327, slip op. (U.S. June 14, 2010). 

 

Appeal: 10-6602 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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

Appeal: 10-6602 Doc: 5 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3