Steven Carver v. Bobby Shearin ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6880
STEVEN G. CARVER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:10-cv-02925-CCB)
Submitted: September 13, 2013 Decided: October 18, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven G. Carver, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven G. Carver seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 (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 Carver has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate
of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3