Bryant v. Warden McGeeie , 119 F. App'x 573 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6671
    MALCOLM BRYANT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    WARDEN MCGEEIE; 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-
    1276-AMD)
    Submitted:   January 27, 2005             Decided:   February 1, 2005
    Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Malcolm Bryant, Appellant Pro Se.       John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Ann Norman Bosse, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Malcolm Bryant seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).
    An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254
    proceeding 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 (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 Bryant 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: 04-6671

Citation Numbers: 119 F. App'x 573

Judges: Luttig, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 2/1/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/18/2024