Kelvin Miles v. State of Maryland

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 8:10-cv-00143-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998425207] [10-6755]

Kelvin Miles v. State of Maryland

Doc. 0

Case: 10-6755 Document: 14

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6755 KELVIN J. MILES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLAND; DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-00143-AW) Submitted: August 18, 2010 Decided: September 15, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-6755 Document: 14

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Kelvin J. Miles seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record Miles 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

2

Case: 10-6755 Document: 14

Date Filed: 09/15/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3