Billy Asemani v. Kathleen Green

Filing 920081218

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7467 BILLY G. ASEMANI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KATHLEEN S. GREEN, ECI Warden; THE ATTORNEY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. (1:08-cv-01591-RDB) Submitted: December 11, 2008 Decided: December 18, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Billy G. Asemani, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition for failing to exhaust state remedies. not appealable of unless a circuit justice See 28 or The order is issues a judge certificate (2000). appealability. U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) 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. See 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). that We have independently has not made reviewed the the record and conclude Asemani 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. DISMISSED 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?