Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06600/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06600-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Angel Herrera
Appellant
Joseph McFadden
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6600

JOSE ANGEL HERRERA,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOSEPH MCFADDEN, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Margaret B. Seymour, Senior

District Judge. (6:15-cv-00505-MBS)

Submitted: October 18, 2016 Decided: October 20, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Angel Herrera, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6600 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Angel Herrera 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 

Herrera has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

although we grant Herrera’s motion for leave to file a 

supplemental informal brief, we deny a certificate of 

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

Appeal: 16-6600 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6600 Doc: 10 Filed: 10/20/2016 Pg: 3 of 3