Dan Temple, Jr. v. State of South Carolina, No. 13-7904 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7904 DAN TEMPLE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (9:13-cv-02207-TLW) Submitted: March 27, 2014 Before MOTZ, Circuit Circuit Judges. Judge, Decided: and HAMILTON and April 1, 2014 DAVIS, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Daniel Temple, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Daniel court s judge order and Temple, Jr., accepting dismissing the his seeks to appeal recommendation 28 U.S.C. of § 2254 the the district magistrate (2012) petition because it was a second or successive petition and Temple had not received authorization from this court. The order is not appealable judge unless a circuit justice or issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012); Reid 363, v. Angelone, certificate of 369 F.3d appealability 369 will (4th not Cir. 2004). absent issue A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable 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 claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Temple has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for transcripts at government expense and dismiss the appeal. Additionally, and informal brief we as construe an Temple s application successive § 2254 petition. to notice file a of appeal second or United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). In order to obtain authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition, a prisoner must assert claims based on either: (1) a new rule of constitutional law, previously unavailable, made retroactive by the Supreme Court to cases on collateral review; or (2) newly discovered evidence, not previously discoverable by due diligence, that would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that, but for constitutional error, no reasonable factfinder have found the petitioner guilty of the offense. § 2244(b)(2) (2012). these criteria. would 28 U.S.C. Temple s claims do not satisfy either of Therefore, we deny authorization to file a successive § 2254 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.
