Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06613/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06613-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 10-6613

CHRISTOPHER JOSEPH FRANCIS,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN EVANS CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(4:08-cv-03871-HFF)

Submitted: July 27, 2010 Decided: August 9, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit 

Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Joseph Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John 

Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Samuel Creighton 

Waters, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6613 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Joseph Francis 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 Francis 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 

Appeal: 10-6613 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6613 Doc: 6 Filed: 08/09/2010 Pg: 3 of 3