Asemani v. Green , 304 F. App'x 166 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-7467
    BILLY G. ASEMANI,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    KATHLEEN S. GREEN, ECI Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
    (1:08-cv-01591-RDB)
    Submitted:    December 11, 2008             Decided:   December 18, 2008
    Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing without prejudice his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000)
    petition for failing to exhaust state remedies.                            The order is
    not    appealable       unless     a   circuit    justice       or    judge     issues   a
    certificate       of    appealability.           See    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (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 any
    assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the    district    court     is    likewise    debatable.            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    that       Asemani     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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 08-7467

Citation Numbers: 304 F. App'x 166

Judges: Agee, Duncan, Niemeyer, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 12/18/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023