Willie Huff v. Warden, Lee Correctional Insti, No. 09-7869 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7869 WILLIE J. HUFF, a/k/a Willie James Huff, a/k/a S Willie J. Huff, Petitioner Appellant, v. WARDEN, LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (8:08-cv-02058-PMD) Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 25, 2010 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willie J. Huff, Appellant Pro Se. Melody Jane Brown, Assistant Attorney General, Donald John Zelenka, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Willie J. Huff 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. A certificate of 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district debatable merits, that court s or a When the district court denies prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find that U.S. the claims constitutional 529 by is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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 the 484-85. conclude that We have Huff independently has not made reviewed the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny Huff s motion to stay, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 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.
