Holt v. Rouse ( 2006 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7957
DARIUS NATHANIEL HOLT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
NANCY L. ROUSE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
05-2127-JFM)
Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 30, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Darius Nathaniel Holt, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory D. Alesandro,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Darius Nathaniel Holt seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000). 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
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, 336-38 (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 Holt 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 -