Stanley v. Shearin , 404 F. App'x 712 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-6224
    SAUL JOSEPH STANLEY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    BOBBY SHEARIN, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General
    of the State of Maryland,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
    (1:09-cv-02713-CCB)
    Submitted:   November 30, 2010             Decided:   December 6, 2010
    Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Saul Joseph Stanley, Appellant Pro Se.      Edward John Kelley,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Saul     Joseph    Stanley         seeks   to    appeal       the   district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                         See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).           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) (2006).                  When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by    demonstrating       that    reasonable       jurists    would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,        
    537 U.S. 322
    ,   336-38
    (2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural
    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                          Slack,
    
    529 U.S. at 484-85
    .           We have independently reviewed the record
    and conclude that Stanley 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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-6224

Citation Numbers: 404 F. App'x 712

Judges: Wilkinson, Keenan, Wotnn

Filed Date: 12/6/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024