Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06047/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06047-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Barry Barnette
Appellee
J. Mark Hayes
Appellee
Marc Hubbard
Appellant
Judges of the Spartanburg County Court of Common Pleas
Appellee
Alan Wilson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6047

MARC HUBBARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BARRY BARNETTE; J. MARK HAYES; ALAN WILSON; JUDGES OF THE 

SPARTANBURG COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,

Chief District Judge. (3:14-cv-00634-FDW)

Submitted: March 31, 2015 Decided: April 3, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick Michael Megaro, APPEALS LAW GROUP, Orlando, Florida, for 

Appellant. James Emory Smith, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, 

Robert D. Cook, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH 

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6047 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Marc Hubbard seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on his pretrial 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241 and 2254 (2012)

petitions and his motion to stay pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2251 

(2012).* The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Hubbard has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

 * Hubbard also moved in this court for stay of the state 

proceedings pursuant to § 2251; we denied that motion by order 

filed on January 23, 2015.

Appeal: 15-6047 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

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 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6047 Doc: 15 Filed: 04/03/2015 Pg: 3 of 3