Andrew Mack v. Warden Trenton CI, No. 16-7307 (4th Cir. 2017)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-7307 ANDREW JAMMIE MACK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TRENTON CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent - Appellee, and STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:16-cv-00838-HMH) Submitted: February 22, 2017 Decided: March 8, 2017 Before MOTZ, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andrew Jammie Mack, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andrew Jammie Mack seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue absent “a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right.” 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Mack has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion to appoint counsel and for a transcript at government expense, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 2 legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.