UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6037
JAMES VANG,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JON OZMINT, Director of SCDC; WARDEN OF PERRY CORRECTIONAL
INSTITUTION,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Richard Mark Gergel, District
Judge. (0:08-cv-02829-RMG)
Submitted: March 31, 2011 Decided: April 6, 2011
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Vang, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy
Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant
Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Vang seeks to appeal the district court’s order
accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying
relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and the court’s
order denying Vang’s motion to reconsider. The orders are not
appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 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 Vang has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Vang’s motion for 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