Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Smith v. Faulkenberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    8 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Titus Smith's appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Smith's petition as untimely. The appeals court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Smith's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the appeals court concluded that Smith did not make the requisite showing to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Smith's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-22 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7665

    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    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Titus Smith's appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Smith's petition as untimely. The appeals court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Smith's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the appeals court concluded that Smith did not make the requisite showing to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Smith's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Smith v. Faulkenberry, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Titus Smith's appeal of the denial of his habeas corpus petition. The district court denied Smith's petition as untimely. The appeals court will not issue a certificate of appealability absent a substantial showing that Smith's constitutional rights were denied. Upon independent review, the appeals court concluded that Smith did not make the requisite showing to justify issuing a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismissed Smith's appeal.

    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. 05-7665

    TITUS SMITH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    OSCAR FAULKENBERRY, Warden; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General for the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (CA-05-954)

    Submitted: December 15, 2005

    Decided:

    December 22, 2005

    Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Titus Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, John William McIntosh, Assistant Attorney
    General, 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).

    PER CURIAM:
    Titus Smith seeks to appeal the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as
    untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).

    The

    order is 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)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Smith 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like