Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07986/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07986-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ronald Beckwith
Appellee
Jose Missouri
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7986

JOSE MISSOURI,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

RONALD BECKWITH,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Beaufort. Sol Blatt, Jr., Senior District 

Judge. (9:08-cv-02878-SB)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 4, 2010

Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Missouri, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7986 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Missouri 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. See 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. 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 

Missouri 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: 09-7986 Doc: 8 Filed: 03/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2