UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6659
CHARLES RAY CARTER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
HENRY MCMASTER; JOHN PATE, Warden,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (8:10-cv-00525-HMH)
Submitted: March 28, 2011 Decided: April 4, 2011
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles Ray Carter, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Ray Carter seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). 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. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Carter has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We deny the motion to place the case in abeyance
and 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