Gary Cooper v. Frank Bishop ( 2021 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 21-6291
    GARY COOPER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK BISHOP, NBCI; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
    MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    George Jarrod Hazel, District Judge. (8:17-cv-03440-GJH)
    Submitted: August 24, 2021                                        Decided: August 27, 2021
    Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gary Cooper, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Gary Cooper seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    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, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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 Cooper 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 21-6291

Filed Date: 8/27/2021

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/27/2021