Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07921/USCOURTS-ca4-15-07921-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
John R. Pate
Appellee
Stanley Wise
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7921

STANLEY WISE,

 Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WARDEN JOHN R. PATE,

 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. J. Michelle Childs, District 

Judge. (4:14-cv-04625-JMC)

Submitted: April 21, 2016 Decided: April 26, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stanley Wise, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-7921 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Stanley Wise 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 

Wise 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 

Appeal: 15-7921 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

this court tely presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-7921 Doc: 5 Filed: 04/26/2016 Pg: 3 of 3