DocketNumber: 10-6275
Citation Numbers: 393 F. App'x 84
Judges: Motz, Gregory, Agee
Filed Date: 8/27/2010
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 11/5/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6275 LEON COLEMAN, trading as The Effective Assistant to Counsel, Petitioner – Appellant, v. J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner of Corrections; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden, Respondents – Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, District Judge. (1:09-cv-03214-BEL) Submitted: August 19, 2010 Decided: August 27, 2010 Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Leon Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Leon Coleman, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his28 U.S.C.A. § 2241
(West 2006 & Supp. 2010) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.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 Coleman 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 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3