PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-2

STEPHEN C. STANKO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LYDELL CHESTNUT, Deputy Warden of Broad River Correctional Secure Facility,

Respondents - Appellees.

No. 22-3

STEPHEN C. STANKO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

BRYAN P. STIRLING, Director, South Carolina Department of Corrections; LYDELL CHESTNUT, Deputy Warden of Broad River Correctional Secure Facility,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Aiken. Richard Mark Gergel, District Judge. (1:19-cv-03257-RMG) USCA4 Appeal: 22-3 Doc: 134 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 2 of 34

Argued: March 19, 2024 Decided: July 29, 2024

Before DIAZ, Chief Judge, and HARRIS and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by published opinion. Judge Harris wrote the opinion, in which Chief Judge Diaz and Judge Heytens joined.

ARGUED: Joseph Perkovich, PHILLIPS BLACK, INC., New York, New York, for Appellant. James Anthony Mabry, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. ON BRIEF: E. Charles Grose, Jr., THE GROSE LAW FIRM, LLC, Greenwood, South Carolina; Joseph C. Welling, PHILLIPS BLACK, INC., St. Louis, Missouri, for Appellant. Alan Wilson, Attorney General, Donald J. Zelenka, Deputy Attorney General, Melody J. Brown, Senior Assistant Deputy Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

2 USCA4 Appeal: 22-3 Doc: 134 Filed: 07/29/2024 Pg: 3 of 34

PAMELA HARRIS, Circuit Judge:

Stephen Stanko appeals the district court’s denial of a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition

challenging one of his two South Carolina capital convictions and sentences. We conclude

that none of Stanko’s claims can survive review under the Antiterrorism and Effective

Death Penalty Act (“AEDPA”): Those claims properly before us on appeal are either

procedurally barred under AEDPA or meritless under AEDPA’s deferential standard of

review. Stanko also seeks review of two docket management decisions made in the district

court. We see no merit to one of these complaints and lack jurisdiction to address the other.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court and dismiss the portion of the

appeal over which we have no jurisdiction.

I.

This capital case winds its way to us after a complex path through the South Carolina

and federal courts. Of the voluminous procedural and factual background, we recount only

what is important to this appeal.

A.

1.

Stephen Stanko has twice been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in South

Carolina courts. The first death sentence, not directly at issue here, was imposed in

Georgetown County for the murder of Stanko’s girlfriend, Laura Ling, and the rape and

attempted murder of her daughter. See generally State v. Stanko, 658 S.E.2d 94 (S.C.

2008). The second – and the one challen

Click Here to Read the rest of this document