Wells v. Hornbaker
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
TYRONE HILLARD WELLS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, versus GARY HORNBAKER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:06-cv-00135-RDB)
Submitted: January 25, 2007
January 30, 2007
Before WIDENER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone Hillard Wells, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Douglas Eason, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Tyrone Hillard Wells, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (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). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).
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, 68384 (4th Cir. 2001). conclude that We have independently reviewed the record and 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.
- 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?