Court Opinion

ID: 183859
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2011-01-28 20:55:46+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:26:05.317100
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-6560

ANTONIO JOSEPH RICHARDSON,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE; WARDEN BROAD RIVER CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (0:09-cv-00336-JFA)

Submitted:   January 12, 2011              Decided:   January 28, 2011

Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Antonio Joseph Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.        Donald John
Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia,
South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Antonio Joseph Richardson seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    denying    relief   on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)

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) (2006).          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) (2006).             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 Richardson 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

                                        2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3