Court Opinion

ID: 4151135
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-03-08 20:01:04.370495+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:46:31.690733
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 16-7307

ANDREW JAMMIE MACK,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondent - Appellee,

          and

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.     Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (4:16-cv-00838-HMH)

Submitted:   February 22, 2017              Decided:   March 8, 2017

Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrew Jammie Mack, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Andrew Jammie Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

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

Mack has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we deny

the motion to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government

expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

                                           2
legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented    in   the   materials

before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED

                                     3