Anthony Howard v. Dr. Randell Nero

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:10-cv-01811-AW Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998492965] [10-7407]

Anthony Howard v. Dr. Randell Nero

Doc. 0

Case: 10-7407 Document: 11

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7407 ANTHONY HOWARD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DR. RANDELL MARYLAND, NERO; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (8:10-cv-01811-AW) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010

Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Anthony Howard, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 10-7407 Document: 11

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Anthony Howard seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. or judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 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. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Howard 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: 10-7407 Document: 11

Date Filed: 12/29/2010

Page: 3

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process. DISMISSED

3