Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06103/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06103-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Glenn Stone
Appellee
Andris Wright
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6103

ANDRIS WRIGHT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GLENN STONE,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00379-HMH)

Submitted: April 22, 2010 Decided: April 28, 2010

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andris Wright, Appellant Pro Se. James Anthony Mabry, Assistant 

Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6103 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Andris Wright 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 (2006) petition. The 

order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues 

a certificate of appealability. 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. 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 Wright has not made the requisite showing.*

 * To the extent that Wright seeks to raise issues here not 

first presented to the district court, we decline to consider 

such issues. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th 

Cir. 1993).

 

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 

Appeal: 10-6103 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6103 Doc: 12 Filed: 04/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3