Hill-Bey v. Peguese , 160 F. App'x 318 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7174
    TERRY SANJUAN HILL-BEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. JOSEPH CURRAN,
    JR., Attorney General of the State of
    Maryland,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
    (CA-05-212-AW)
    Submitted: December 22, 2005              Decided:   December 30, 2005
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Terry Sanjuan Hill-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Terry Hill-Bey, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order dismissing his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism and
    Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.         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
    for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the
    district   court’s   assessment   of   his   constitutional    claims    is
    debatable or wrong 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 Hill-
    Bey 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: 05-7174

Citation Numbers: 160 F. App'x 318

Judges: Widener, Niemeyer, King

Filed Date: 12/30/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024