Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • LaSure v. SC Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alfred LaSure, a South Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that LaSure did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-07-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6520

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alfred LaSure, a South Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that LaSure did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    LaSure v. SC Dept of Corrections, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document summarizes a court case in which Alfred LaSure, a South Carolina prisoner, sought to appeal the district court's denial of his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The appeals court dismissed the appeal, finding that LaSure did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2).

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-6520

    ALFRED LASURE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS;
    HENRY DARGAN MCMASTER, Attorney General for
    South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Rock Hill. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
    (CA-04-944-RBH)

    Submitted:

    July 14, 2005

    Decided:

    July 27, 2005

    Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Alfred LaSure, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy
    Attorney General, Derrick K. McFarland, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Alfred LaSure, a South Carolina prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the district courts order adopting the recommendation of the
    magistrate judge and denying relief on his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final

    order in a 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge


    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)

    A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims

    addressed by a district court absent a substantial showing of the


    denial of a constitutional right.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable


    jurists would find both that the district courts assessment of his
    constitutional

    claims

    is

    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 that LaSure 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like