Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08134/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08134-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Levern Cohen
Appellee
Zachary Vincent Miller
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8134

ZACHARY VINCENT MILLER, a/k/a Zachary V. Miller,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

LEVERN COHEN, Warden, Ridgeland Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Anderson. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (8:08-cv-03729-GRA)

Submitted: April 12, 2010 Decided: June 2, 2010

Before MOTZ, AGEE, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Zachary Vincent Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, 

South Carolina, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8134 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/02/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Zachary Vincent Miller seeks a certificate of 

appealability to appeal the district court’s order accepting the 

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing his 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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. 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 Miller has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s 

application for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to 

proceed in forma pauperis, 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: 09-8134 Doc: 10 Filed: 06/02/2010 Pg: 2 of 2