James Reed, Jr. v. Bobby Shearin , 547 F. App'x 275 ( 2013 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6900
JAMES E. REED, JR., a/k/a James Bonnett,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
Warden BOBBY P. SHEARIN,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00091-JKB)
Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James E. Reed, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor Doyle,
Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James E. Reed, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) 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 Reed 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3