Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 12 views

    Pete Bryant v. Leroy Cartledge, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Bryant's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Bryant did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant failed to demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Bryant's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd

    Pete Bryant v. Leroy Cartledge, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    12 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Bryant's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Bryant did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant failed to demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Bryant's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2011-08-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 11-6125

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Bryant's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Bryant did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant failed to demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Bryant's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    12 views3 pages

    Pete Bryant v. Leroy Cartledge, 4th Cir. (2011)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pete Bryant's appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court concluded that Bryant did not make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Bryant failed to demonstrate that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims was debatable or wrong, or that his petition stated a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Bryant's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf
    You are on page 1of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 11-6125

    PETE S. BRYANT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Columbia.
    Cameron McGowan Currie, District
    Judge. (3:09-cv-03234-CMC)

    Submitted:

    July 28, 2011

    Decided:

    August 4, 2011

    Before KING, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Pete S. Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.


    Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
    Assistant Attorney General, Brendan McDonald, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina,
    for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Pete S. Bryant seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
    issue

    absent

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    See

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    of

    When the

    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating

    that

    reasonable

    jurists

    would

    find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


    claims is debatable or wrong.

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

    484

    Cockrell,

    (2000);

    (2003).

    see

    Miller-El

    v.

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336-38

    When the district court denies relief on procedural

    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
    529 U.S. at 484-85.

    Slack,

    We have independently reviewed the record

    and conclude that Bryant 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

    You might also like