Sewell v. Green , 251 F. App'x 176 ( 2007 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6962
EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-00667-DKC)
Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as
untimely. 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 Sewell 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 -