Davis v. Sowers , 230 F. App'x 310 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6622
    BENJAMIN DAVIS, III, a/k/a BJ,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
    FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
    (1:04-cv-03748-WDQ)
    Submitted:   June 1, 2007                  Decided:   June 21, 2007
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Benjamin Davis, III, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
    Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Benjamin Davis, III, 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 Davis has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.         We also deny Davis’ motion
    for appointment of counsel. 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: 06-6622

Citation Numbers: 230 F. App'x 310

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Shedd

Filed Date: 6/21/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023