Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07489/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07489-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jose Antonio Anzaldo
Appellant
Cecelia Reynolds
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7489

JOSE ANTONIO ANZALDO, a/k/a Jose A. Anzaldo,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CECELIA REYNOLDS, Warden Kershaw Correctional Institution,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Richard Mark Gergel, District 

Judge. (8:14-cv-03175-RMG)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Antonio Anzaldo, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, 

Senior Assistant Attorney General, Kaycie Smith Timmons, 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7489 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jose Antonio Anzaldo 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 

Anzaldo 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 

Appeal: 15-7489 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 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: 15-7489 Doc: 7 Filed: 02/25/2016 Pg: 3 of 3