Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07307/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07307-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Andrew Jammie Mack
Appellant
State of South Carolina

Warden Trenton Correctional Institution
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7307

ANDREW JAMMIE MACK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee,

and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (4:16-cv-00838-HMH)

Submitted: February 22, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Jammie Mack, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-7307 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/08/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrew Jammie Mack 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 

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

the motion to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government 

expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

Appeal: 16-7307 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/08/2017 Pg: 2 of 3
3

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-7307 Doc: 5 Filed: 03/08/2017 Pg: 3 of 3