Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Pough v. Ozmint, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Melvin Pough's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Pough did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2007-08-29 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-6621

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Melvin Pough's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Pough did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Pough v. Ozmint, 4th Cir. (2007)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing Melvin Pough's appeal of the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Pough did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 07-6621

    MELVIN POUGH,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JONATHAN E. OZMINT; STAN BURTT, Warden, Liber
    Correctional Institution; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General of the State of South
    Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge.
    (2:06-cv-03279-DCN)

    Submitted:

    August 23, 2007

    Decided:

    August 29, 2007

    Before WILLIAMS, Chief Judge,* and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Melvin Pough, Appellant Pro Se. William Edgar Salter, III, OFFICE
    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South
    Carolina, for Appellee.

    Chief Judge Williams was a member of the original panel but


    did not participate in the decision. This opinion is filed by a
    quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 46(d).

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    - 2 -

    PER CURIAM:
    Melvin Pough seeks to appeal the district courts order
    accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing
    as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The order is not

    appealable 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 reasonable


    jurists would 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 Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Pough 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

    - 3 -

    You might also like