Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06706/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06706-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Tony Axam

Jeffrey Bloom

Leroy Cartledge
Appellee
Felix Cheeseboro
Appellant
Ross Hall

Bill Nettles

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-6706

FELIX CHEESEBORO, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

LEROY CARTLEDGE, Acting Warden of McCormick Correctional 

Institution, 

 Respondent – Appellee, 

 and 

JEFFREY BLOOM; TONY AXAM; BILL NETTLES; ROSS HALL, 

 Respondents. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, District 

Judge. (0:07-cv-04090-PMD) 

Submitted: December 16, 2009 Decided: January 13, 2010 

Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Felix Cheeseboro, Appellant Pro Se. Samuel Creighton Waters, 

Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Appeal: 09-6706 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

2 

Appeal: 09-6706 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3 

PER CURIAM: 

Felix Cheeseboro seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. See 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 

Cheeseboro 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: 09-6706 Doc: 7 Filed: 01/13/2010 Pg: 3 of 3