Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Bankston v. Anthony, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Etien Brook Bankston's appeal from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court reviewed the record and determined that Bankston did not make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-12-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7449

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Etien Brook Bankston's appeal from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court reviewed the record and determined that Bankston did not make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Bankston v. Anthony, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Etien Brook Bankston's appeal from the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition, which will not be issued unless the petitioner makes a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. The court reviewed the record and determined that Bankston did not make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 04-7449

    ETIEN BROOK BANKSTON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN ANTHONY, Warden of Kershaw Correctional
    Institution; 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 Florence. Margaret B. Seymour, District Judge.
    (CA-03-32-24)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2004

    Decided:

    December 1, 2004

    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Etien Brook Bankston, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief
    Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Etien Brook Bankston appeals from the denial of relief on
    his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    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.

    28 U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Bankston
    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing.

    We,

    therefore,

    certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    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 in the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like