Opinion
No. 10-7139.
Submitted: January 31, 2011.
Decided: February 14, 2011.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (4:09-cv-02110-CMC).
Ardon P. Cato, II, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, James Anthony Mabry, Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Ardon P. Cato, II, 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. The order is 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cato has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We furthermore deny as moot Cato's motion to hold this case in abeyance pending the district court's consideration of his motion to amend the district court's judgment, as the district court has denied that motion. 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.