Edgar Joseph Birch v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional Institution

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6224
EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and
GREENVILLE COUNTY SOUTH CAROLINA; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.
No. 08-6239
EDGAR JOSEPH BIRCH,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondent - Appellee,
and

-- 1 of 3 --

- 2 -
SOUTH CAROLINA PICKENS COUNTY; SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS,
Respondents.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. G. Ross Anderson, Jr., District
Judge. (2:07-cv-03207-GRA; 2:07-cv-03206-GRA)
Submitted: June 9, 2008 Decided: June 26, 2008
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Edgar Joseph Birch, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Joseph Birch seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)
petitions. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court
is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the records and conclude that Birch has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss
the appeals. 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

-- 3 of 3 --