Case Name: Antonio Joseph RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE; Warden Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-01-28
Citations: 409 F. App'x 715
Docket Number: No. 10-6560
Parties: Antonio Joseph RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE; Warden Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 715–715

Head Matter:
Antonio Joseph RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE; Warden Broad River Correctional Institution, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-6560.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 12, 2011.
Decided: Jan. 28, 2011.
Antonio Joseph Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Joseph Richardson 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). 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richardson 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.