Howard T. Peterson, Iii v. WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional Institution

04-7678Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit18 de mar. de 2005

Abrir fonte

Texto completo

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7678
HOWARD T. PETERSON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WILLIE EAGLETON, Warden, Evans Correctional
Institution; HENRY MCMASTER, Attorney General
of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
(CA-03-1122-4)
Submitted: February 11, 2005 Decided: March 18, 2005
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard T. Peterson, III, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Howard T. Peterson, III, seeks to appeal from the denial
of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may
not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254
proceeding 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 jurists of
reason would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have reviewed the record and conclude that Peterson
has not made the requisite showing. We therefore 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 the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --

Continue sua pesquisa no ChatGPT ou Claude

Conecte o Omnilex para pesquisar o corpus jurídico pelo seu assistente de IA.