Stanko v. Maynard, (4th Cir. 2004)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6365 STEPHEN C. STANKO, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

GARY MAYNARD, Director, SCDC; CHARLES M. 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. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.

(CA-02-669-8-25BI)

Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 4, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Stephen C. Stanko, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenk a, Chief Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

- 2 - PER CURIAM: Stephen C. Stanko seeks to appeal the district court§ 2254 (2000) petition. Stanko

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 § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas

appellant 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

, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel

, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee

, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Stanko 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

---