John Demos, Jr. v. Donald Holbrook ( 2015 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 15-6311
    JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., a/k/a Anwarri Shabazz,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    DONALD R. HOLBROOK, Superintendent; THE U.S.A.; WASHINGTON,
    DC; THE UNITED STATES; THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
    Judge. (1:15-cv-00250-CCB)
    Submitted:   June 19, 2015                  Decided:   July 6, 2015
    Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    John Robert Demos, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
    the   district      court’s     order   denying    relief         on    his   
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (2012) 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)           (2012).            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)
    (2012).    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
    Demos has not made the requisite showing.                     Accordingly, we deny
    a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
    pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                The motions for appointment
    of counsel, to clarify jurisdiction, and to clarify, amend, or
    modify are denied.           We dispense with oral argument because the
    2
    facts   and   legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented     in   the
    materials     before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 15-6311

Judges: Motz, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 7/6/2015

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/6/2024