Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06694/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06694-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Larry Cartledge
Appellee
Edward Mack
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6694

EDWARD MACK, a/k/a Edward D. Mack,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

LARRY CARTLEDGE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Orangeburg. Mary G. Lewis, District Judge. 

(5:13-cv-01021-MGL)

Submitted: July 23, 2015 Decided: July 28, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward Mack, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant 

Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6694 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Edward Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 

Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Mack’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 15-6694 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2015 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: 15-6694 Doc: 8 Filed: 07/28/2015 Pg: 3 of 3