Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06530/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06530-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Adam Bickham
Appellant
Robert Stevenson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6530

ADAM BICKHAM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ROBERT STEVENSON, Warden Broad River Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (4:15-cv-00813-JFA)

Submitted: October 20, 2016 Decided: November 4, 2016

Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jeremy A. Thompson, LAW OFFICE OF JEREMY A. THOMPSON, LLC, 

Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6530 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Adam Bickham 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. 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 

Bickham 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 contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6530 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6530 Doc: 12 Filed: 11/04/2016 Pg: 3 of 3