Badgett v. Peguese , 84 F. App'x 296 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7578
    CLIFTON DERWIN BADGETT, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden, Maryland House of
    Corrections - Annex; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-03-
    242-AMD)
    Submitted:   December 11, 2003         Decided:     December 23, 2003
    Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Clifton Derwin Badgett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran,
    Jr., Attorney General, Edward Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
    GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Clifton Derwin Badgett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).     The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    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 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record
    and conclude that Badgett 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: 03-7578

Citation Numbers: 84 F. App'x 296

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/23/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024