Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Graham v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which James Graham sought to appeal a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Graham did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Graham did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment or find any procedural rulings debatable.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-05-24 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-7664

    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 summarizes a court case in which James Graham sought to appeal a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Graham did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Graham did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment or find any procedural rulings debatable.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    5 views2 pages

    Graham v. State of South Carolina, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which James Graham sought to appeal a district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The appeals court dismissed the case, finding that Graham did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and determined that Graham did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would debate the district court's assessment or find any procedural rulings debatable.

    Copyright:

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

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-7664

    JAMES GRAHAM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    STATE OF SOUTH
    INSTITUTION,

    CAROLINA;

    WARDEN

    OF

    EVANS

    CORRECTIONAL

    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill.
    Margaret B. Seymour, District
    Judge. (0:08-cv-02793-MBS)

    Submitted:

    May 20, 2010

    Decided:

    May 24, 2010

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    James Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Alphonso Simon, Jr., OFFICE OF


    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Donald John Zelenka,
    Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for
    Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    James

    Graham

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts

    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and


    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.
    A

    certificate

    of

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

    appealability

    will

    not

    issue

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28

    U.S.C.

    standard

    2253(c)(2)

    by

    (2006).

    demonstrating

    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this
    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

    record

    and

    showing.

    Cir.

    2001).

    conclude

    We

    that

    have

    Graham

    independently

    has

    not

    made

    reviewed
    the

    the

    requisite

    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

    the

    court

    and

    argument

    would

    not

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    You might also like