Goodwin v. Koppel

Filing 920070622

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a 28

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that

A prisoner satisfies this standard by jurists would find that any

reasonable

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. facts and legal before We dispense with oral argument because the are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the

contentions the court

materials

would

decisional process.

DISMISSED

- 2 -