Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08029/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08029-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-8029

FELTON YAWN,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden ECI,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (4:09-cv-01221-PMD)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 23, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Felton Yawn, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8029 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Felton Yawn, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order adopting the recommendation of the 

magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(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). 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 (2003); 

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 

252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently 

reviewed the record and conclude that Yawn 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

Appeal: 09-8029 Doc: 7 Filed: 03/23/2010 Pg: 2 of 2