Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

90 F. App'x 38

Pierce v. Wright

U.S. Courts of Appeals

Decided March 18, 2004

U.S. Courts of Appeals · decided 2004-03-18

Cited by 1 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2004

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 636

Relies on Slack v. McDaniel · Miller-El v. Cockrell Director Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division · Rose v. Lee

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion · Decided 2004-03-18

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

PER CURIAM.

¶1 Mario Russell Pierce appeals from the magistrate judge’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. * An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(l)(2000). *39 This court will not issue a certificate of appealability as to claims dismissed by a district court or magistrate judge on procedural grounds unless the movant can demonstrate both “(I) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)).

¶2 We have reviewed the record and determine that Pierce has not made the requisite showing. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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 in the decisional process.

¶3 DISMISSED

*

¶4 The parties consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2001).

/90/fappx/38 · .json · Public domain