United States v. Walters , 112 F. App'x 296 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-6995
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    versus
    LLOYD PATRICK WALTERS,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, District Judge. (CR-
    00-122)
    Submitted:   August 13, 2004                 Decided:   November 8, 2004
    Before WIDENER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Lloyd Patrick Walters, Appellant Pro Se. Gina Laurie Simms, OFFICE
    OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Lloyd Patrick Walters appeals from the district court’s
    orders    denying     his     motions    for     reconsideration,       or    in   the
    alternative, for a certificate of appealability.                       Walters also
    moves    in   this   Court    for    a   certificate     of   appealability.         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 habeas appellant meets 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
    , 326 (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 Walters has not made the requisite showing.                   Accordingly,
    we dismiss the appeal, and deny Walters’ motion for a certificate
    of appealability. 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: 04-6995

Citation Numbers: 112 F. App'x 296

Judges: King, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 11/8/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023