Chase v. Maryland Division of Correction ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7983
    WARREN CHASE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION (DOC); ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:09-cv-00955-CCB)
    Submitted:    January 14, 2010               Decided:   January 22, 2010
    Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Warren Chase, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Warren       Chase    seeks       to     appeal      the    district       court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) 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) (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).        A
    prisoner       satisfies        this           standard        by     demonstrating            that
    reasonable       jurists       would          find    that     any     assessment         of     the
    constitutional         claims       by    the    district        court      is    debatable       or
    wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
    court is likewise debatable.                         See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484
    (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                                        We
    have independently reviewed the record and conclude Chase has
    not     made    the     requisite         showing.           Accordingly,          we     deny    a
    certificate       of     appealability            and     dismiss         the    appeal.          We
    dispense       with     oral    argument             because     the       facts    and        legal
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7983

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Agee

Filed Date: 1/22/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024