Watkins v. Galley ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7940
    GERALD COSTELLO WATKINS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JON P. GALLEY; JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., The
    Attorney General of 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. (1:06-cv-
    00910-AMD)
    Submitted: April 26, 2007                       Decided: May 1, 2007
    Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Gerald Costello Watkins, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Gerald Costello Watkins seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition.    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
    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.          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 that Watkins 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: 06-7940

Judges: Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd, Williams

Filed Date: 5/1/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024