Fabian Shim v. Frank Bishop, Jr. ( 2018 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 18-6859
    FABIAN SHIM,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt.
    Theodore D. Chuang, District Judge. (8:16-cv-03979-TDC)
    Submitted: November 29, 2018                                 Decided: December 4, 2018
    Before DUNCAN and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Fabian Shim, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Fabian Shim seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2012) 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)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Shim 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 this court and argument would not aid the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 18-6859

Filed Date: 12/4/2018

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/18/2021