Court Opinion

ID: 2773635
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-01-27 20:00:58.457844+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:48:31.409610
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7522

VERNON HARRISON,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

STEVENSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.    Terry L. Wooten, Chief District
Judge. (4:13-cv-01004-TLW)

Submitted:   January 22, 2015             Decided:   January 27, 2015

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Vernon Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr. Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Vernon Harrison 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 (2012) petition, and its

order    denying     relief       on   reconsideration.            An   order     denying

§ 2254    relief    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 Harrison 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

                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3