Demos v. United States , 303 F. App'x 153 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-8146
    JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:08-cv-02162-CCB)
    Submitted:    December 2, 2008             Decided:   December 16, 2008
    Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Washington state prisoner,
    seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2241
     (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 Demos 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: 08-8146

Citation Numbers: 303 F. App'x 153

Judges: Traxler, Agee, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/16/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024