Brian Daniels v. Anthony Padula, No. 12-7537 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7537 BRIAN DANIELS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ANTHONY J. PADULA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (0:09-cv-00755-PMD) Submitted: January 24, 2013 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Decided: Judges, and February 5, 2013 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Brian Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Alphonso Simon, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Brian orders Daniels denying his seeks Fed. to R. appeal Civ. the P. district 60(b) court s motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion order denying appealable seeking Rule unless to alter circuit certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 amend relief. * 60(b) a or the district These justice orders or judge court s are issues not a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); F.3d 363, appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. issue 2004). 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 prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies Slack satisfies jurists this would of the v. McDaniel, standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims 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 * We reject Daniels argument that the district court s issuance of margin orders violates his due process rights. 2 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Daniels has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense contentions with are oral argument adequately because presented in the facts and the materials legal before this 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.
