Hinton v. Maryland Department of Public Safety & Correctional Services , 200 F. App'x 173 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6514
    HOWARD JEROME HINTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
    CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv-
    00455-AMD)
    Submitted:   August 21, 2006            Decided:   September 13, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Howard Jerome Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Howard Jerome Hinton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.              The
    order is not appealable 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 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.        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 Hinton 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: 06-6514

Citation Numbers: 200 F. App'x 173

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Wilkinson, Williams

Filed Date: 9/13/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023