Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07006/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07006-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph McFadden
Appellee
Rafael Escalante Placencia
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7006

RAFAEL ESCALANTE PLACENCIA, a/k/a Rafael Mendoza Escalante,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. David C. Norton, District Judge. 

(5:13-cv-01795-DCN)

Submitted: January 22, 2015 Decided: January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rafael Escalante Placencia, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John 

Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, William Edgar 

Salter, III, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7006 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Rafael Escalante Placencia 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 

(2012) petition. 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 Placencia 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 

Appeal: 14-7006 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7006 Doc: 11 Filed: 01/27/2015 Pg: 3 of 3