Jermaine Blackwell v. Frank Bishop, Jr. ( 2022 )


Menu:
  •                                     UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 22-6155
    JERMAINE BLACKWELL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    FRANK B. BISHOP, JR., Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
    Richard D. Bennett, Senior District Judge. (1:14-cv-01538-RDB)
    Submitted: April 26, 2022                                         Decided: April 29, 2022
    Before AGEE and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jermaine Blackwell, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jermaine Blackwell 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, 
    137 S. Ct. 759
    , 773-74 (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 conclude that Blackwell 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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 22-6155

Filed Date: 4/29/2022

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 4/29/2022