Terrence Whitaker v. Alvin Keller, No. 09-8013 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8013 TERRENCE MAURICE WHITAKER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALVIN W. KELLER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00702-TDS-DPD) Submitted: June 24, 2010 Decided: July 15, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrence Maurice Whitaker, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Terrence Maurice Whitaker seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and denying petition. or judge accepting relief recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the absent a of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude Accordingly, Whitaker s We have independently reviewed the record Whitaker we deny motions Slack, has a for not made certificate appointment the of of requisite showing. appealability, counsel, for deny an evidentiary hearing, to grant release upon review and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
