Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06342/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Ahmad Clarence Garland
Appellant
Jon Ozmint

South Carolina Department of Corrections

Edsel T. Taylor
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6342

AHMAD CLARENCE GARLAND,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

EDSEL T. TAYLOR, Warden Mac C1,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; JON OZMINT, Director

SCDC,

Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Florence. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., Chief

District Judge. (4:07-cv-00194-JFA)

Submitted: May 22, 2008 Decided: May 30, 2008

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

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ahmad Clarence Garland, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter,

III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,

South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH CAROLINA ATTORNEY

GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Appeal: 08-6342 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6342 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Ahmad Clarence Garland seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely

filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Garland 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: 08-6342 Doc: 6 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 3 of 3