Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06355/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06355-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Henry McMaster
Appellee
Joe Franklin Sanders
Appellant
United States of America
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6355

JOE FRANKLIN SANDERS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General for

South Carolina,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.

(0:06-cv-03175-MBS)

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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joe Franklin Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, SOUTH

CAROLINA ATTORNEY GENERAL’S OFFICE, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6355 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Joe Franklin Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

dismissing 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. 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 Sanders 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: 08-6355 Doc: 5 Filed: 05/30/2008 Pg: 2 of 2