Heslop v. Hutchinson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
WAYDE ALVIN HESLOP, Petitioner - Appellant, versus RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN, JR., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (1:04-cv-01181-WMN)
January 19, 2007
February 9, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayde Alvin Heslop, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Wayde Alvin Heslop 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." § 2253(c)(2) (2000). that A prisoner satisfies would this 28 U.S.C. standard that by 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 Heslop has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
- 2 -
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?