DocketNumber: 05-7302
Citation Numbers: 172 F. App'x 554
Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams
Filed Date: 3/28/2006
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/19/2024
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7302 DAVID SONNY LYNCH, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus JON P. GALLEY, Warden, ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Benson Everett Legg, Chief District Judge. (CA-05-1365-1-BEL) Submitted: March 23, 2006 Decided: March 28, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Sonny Lynch, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: David Sonny Lynch, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his petition filed under28 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) (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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Lynch 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 -