William Mark Brockmeyer v. JOEL ANDERSON, Acting Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 24-7012
WILLIAM MARK BROCKMEYER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOEL ANDERSON, Acting Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections;
KIRKLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken.
Jacquelyn Denise Austin, District Judge. (1:23-cv-01645-JDA)
Submitted: August 28, 2025 Decided: November 3, 2025
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elizabeth Anne Franklin-Best, ELIZABETH FRANKLIN-BEST, P.C., Columbia, South
Carolina; Jillian Marie Lesley, CROMER BABB & PORTER, LLC, Columbia, South
Carolina, for Appellant.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
William Mark Brockmeyer seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation and denying relief on Brockmeyer’s
28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Brockmeyer has not
made the requisite showing. His counsel’s failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony
was not strategic. Nevertheless, in light of the overwhelming evidence of Brockmeyer’s
guilt, we reject his contention that he suffered prejudice. There is not a reasonable
probability that, but for counsel’s errors, the verdict would have been different. Nor did
the district court err in rejecting Brockmeyer’s remaining claims. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

-- 2 of 3 --

3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --