Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07920/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07920-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
State of South Carolina
Appellee
Antonio D. Tisdale
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7920

ANTONIO D. TISDALE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior 

District Judge. (4:04-cv-01319-PMD)

Submitted: May 17, 2010 Decided: June 8, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio D. Tisdale, Appellant Pro Se. Derrick K. McFarland, 

SOUTH CAROLINA BUDGET AND CONTROL BOARD, Columbia, South 

Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7920 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Antonio D. Tisdale seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order 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). 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 Tisdale has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, 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: 09-7920 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2