Court Opinion

ID: 4372845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-03-01 20:00:37.272968+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:25:45.505395
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 18-7112

TUNZY A. SANDERS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

WARDEN OF ALLENDALE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:17-cv-01819-HMH)

Submitted: February 26, 2019                                      Decided: March 1, 2019

Before KING, THACKER, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tunzy A. Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Senior Assistant Attorney
General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Tunzy A. Sanders seeks to appeal the district court’s order 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 Sanders 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             2