Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06239/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06239-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 08-6224

EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

GREENVILLE COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

No. 08-6239

EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

Appeal: 08-6239 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

SOUTH CAROLINA PICKENS COUNTY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS,

Respondents.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District

Judge. (2:07-cv-03207-GRA; 2:07-cv-03206-GRA)

Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: June 26, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edgar Joseph Birch, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6239 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Edgar Joseph Birch seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). 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

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the records and conclude that Birch has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss

the appeals. 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: 08-6239 Doc: 20 Filed: 06/26/2008 Pg: 3 of 3