Pilkington v. Kupec , 78 F. App'x 289 ( 2003 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-7280
    ERIC   ALLEN     PILKINGTON,     a/k/a   Erick    A.
    Pilkington,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT J. KUPEC, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
    03-1588-JFM)
    Submitted:     October 9, 2003                 Decided:   October 21, 2003
    Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Eric Allen Pilkington, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Eric Allen Pilkington, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).    An appeal may not be taken from the final
    order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.               
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1)
    (2000).   A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims
    addressed by a district court 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   both    that       his   constitutional   claims   are
    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
    ,         , 
    123 S. Ct. 1029
    , 1039-40 (2003); Slack
    v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    ,
    683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 
    534 U.S. 941
     (2001).                    We have
    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pilkington 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: 03-7280

Citation Numbers: 78 F. App'x 289

Judges: Duncan, King, Luttig, Per Curiam

Filed Date: 10/21/2003

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/6/2023