Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06903/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06903-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of South Carolina
Appellee
State of South Carolina
Appellee
Uganda Wilson
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6903

UGANDA WILSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.

(4:05-cv-03231)

Submitted: February 19, 2008 Decided: July 2, 2008

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Uganda Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III,

Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6903 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/02/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Uganda Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his

motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). 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 record and conclude that Wilson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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: 07-6903 Doc: 18 Filed: 07/02/2008 Pg: 2 of 2