Court Opinion

ID: 9382282
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-25 21:00:35.769081+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.213115
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7098      Doc: 16         Filed: 03/24/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-7098

        ERIC ANCRUM,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director of the SCDC;
        WARDEN RAFAEL VERGARA, of CoreCivic,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
        Donald C. Coggins, Jr., District Judge. (1:20-cv-04264-DCC)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 24, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Tristan Michael Shaffer, ADAMS & BISCHOFF, LLC, Columbia, South Carolina, for
        Appellant.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7098         Doc: 16        Filed: 03/24/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Eric Ancrum seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation

        of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Ancrum’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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)(A). 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). When

        the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by

        demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the district court’s assessment of the

        constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017).

        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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134,

        140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ancrum 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