Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07619/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07619-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Stan Burtt
Appellee
Henry McMaster

Derrian LaTroyce Spann
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7619

DERRIAN LATROYCE SPANN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STAN BURTT, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for South Carolina, 

Respondent. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.

(4:06-cv-03083-HFF)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Derrian LaTroyce Spann, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters,

Donald John Zelenka, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH

CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7619 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Derrian LaTroyce Spann seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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) (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. See 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

Spann 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

adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument

would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7619 Doc: 10 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2