Court Opinion

ID: 1013968
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:09:27.086567+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:34:33.710894
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6365

STEPHEN C. STANKO,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GARY MAYNARD, Director, SCDC; CHARLES M.
CONDON, Attorney General of the State of South
Carolina,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson.   Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
(CA-02-669-8-25BI)

Submitted:   July 29, 2004                 Decided:   August 4, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen C. Stanko, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Stephen C. Stanko seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.                   Stanko

cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues

a certificate of appealability, and 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) (2000).            A habeas

appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong.      See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude Stanko 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

                                     - 2 -