McKenzie Shelton v. Leroy Cartledge, No. 13-7519 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7519 MCKENZIE COREY SHELTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LEROY CARTLEDGE, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge. (4:12-cv-03193-RBH) Submitted: March 21, 2014 Decided: March 26, 2014 Before KING, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. McKenzie Corey Shelton, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: McKenzie Corey Shelton seeks to appeal the district court s judge order and denying petition. or accepting relief recommendation on his 28 of U.S.C. the § magistrate 2254 (2012) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). issue the absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of 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 Shelton has not made the requisite showing. we deny government Shelton s expense, dismiss the appeal. motions for deny certificate a copies and of a Accordingly, transcript appealability, at and We dispense with oral argument because the 2 facts and materials legal before contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.
