Goodwin v. Koppel , 230 F. App'x 327 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6471
    KAMAL DORCHY GOODWIN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
    THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
    (8:06-cv-03067-PJM)
    Submitted: June 15, 2007                    Decided:   June 22, 2007
    Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Kamal Dorchy Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Kamal Dorchy Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition and
    requests the appointment of counsel on appeal.               An order denying
    § 2254 relief 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 Goodwin has not
    made the requisite showing.        Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
    appealability, deny the request for the appointment of counsel 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: 07-6471

Citation Numbers: 230 F. App'x 327

Judges: King, Michael, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 6/22/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023