UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6436
JEFFERY HARLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; GARY
MAYNARD, Director; CHARLIE CONDON, Attorney
General of the State of South Carolina,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Cameron M. Currie, District Judge.
(CA-02-1118-8-22-BI)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffery Harley, Appellant Pro Se. Roy F. Laney, RILEY, POPE &
LANEY, L.L.C., Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jeffery Harley seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation to deny
relief on Harley’s habeas petition, in which Harley alleged the
South Carolina Department of Corrections miscalculated his
sentence. Harley raised this claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
The district court reviewed Harley’s claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
(2000). The district court entered an order denying Harley relief
based on his failure to exhaust state remedies.
Harley cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or
justice issues a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are
debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v.
Cockrell, U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v.
McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683
(4th Cir.), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 941 (2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Harley 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
2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3