Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06157/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06157-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Joseph L. Hazel
Appellant
John Pate
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6157

JOSEPH L. HAZEL, a/k/a Joseph Hazel,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN PATE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. 

(8:14-cv-04435-TMC)

Submitted: June 23, 2016 Decided: June 28, 2016

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Joseph L. Hazel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior 

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6157 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Joseph L. Hazel 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 (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 

Hazel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Hazel’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

Appeal: 16-6157 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6157 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/28/2016 Pg: 3 of 3