Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sullivan v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing David Sullivan's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that Sullivan has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as is required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denies Sullivan's request for a certificate of appealability, dismisses his appeal, and denies his motion to authorize transcripts at government expense.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-10 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6300

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing David Sullivan's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that Sullivan has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as is required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denies Sullivan's request for a certificate of appealability, dismisses his appeal, and denies his motion to authorize transcripts at government expense.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    1 views3 pages

    Sullivan v. Smith, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing David Sullivan's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition without prejudice. The Fourth Circuit finds that Sullivan has not made a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as is required for a certificate of appealability. As a result, the Fourth Circuit denies Sullivan's request for a certificate of appealability, dismisses his appeal, and denies his motion to authorize transcripts at government expense.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6300

    DAVID FERRELL SULLIVAN,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RICHARD
    SMITH,
    Warden,
    Tyger
    River
    Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTERS,
    Attorney General of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge.
    (6:05-730-HFF)

    Submitted: March 30, 2006

    Decided: April 10, 2006

    Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Farrell Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David Sullivan seeks to appeal the district courts order
    adopting the magistrate judges recommendation to

    dismiss without

    prejudice Sullivans 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition, as well as


    the courts denial of his motion for reconsideration. These orders
    are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    (2000).

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.

    See 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

    (4th

    Cir.

    2001).

    We

    have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sullivan has


    not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate
    of

    appealability

    and

    dismiss

    the

    appeal.

    Further,

    we

    deny

    Sullivans motion to authorize the preparation of transcripts at


    government expense.

    We dispense with oral argument, because the

    facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the

    - 2 -

    materials

    before

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 3 -

    You might also like