Stephen Cooke, Jr. v. Allen Gang

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7325 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/07/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 20-7325
STEPHEN M. COOKE, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
ALLEN GANG, Warden; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:19-cv-03256-SAG)
Submitted: March 15, 2023 Decided: April 7, 2023
Before DIAZ, Circuit Judge, MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael E. Lawlor, Nicholas George Madiou, BRENNAN MCKENNA & LAWLOR,
Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
Daniel John Jawor, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7325 Doc: 28 Filed: 04/07/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Stephen M. Cooke, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the
district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.
Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000)).
We have independently reviewed the record and the parties’ informal briefs, and we
conclude that Cooke 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