Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ronald Blanding v. Warden of McCormick Correctional, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ronald Blanding's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that Blanding failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2014-12-23 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 14-7217

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ronald Blanding's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that Blanding failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ronald Blanding v. Warden of McCormick Correctional, 4th Cir. (2014)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ronald Blanding's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued an unpublished opinion stating that Blanding failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, which is required for a certificate of appealability. As such, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7217

    RONALD BLANDING,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    WARDEN OF MCCORMICK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Anderson.
    Mary G. Lewis, District Judge.
    (8:12-cv-01179-MGL)

    Submitted:

    December 18, 2014

    Decided:

    December 23, 2014

    Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronald Blanding, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior


    Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant
    Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronald Blanding seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2012) petition.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues


    a certificate of appealability.
    (2012).

    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) (2012).
    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    on

    both

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    must

    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 Blanding 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

    You might also like