Benjamin Sifrit v. John Rowley

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying appointing/assigning counsel. Originating case number: 1:08-cv-02327-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998627504]. Mailed to: Benjamin Sifrit. [10-7563]

Appeal: 10-7563

Document: 13

Date Filed: 07/08/2011

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7563

BENJAMIN A. SIFRIT,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN
A.
ROWLEY,
Warden,
North
Branch
Correctional
Institution; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of 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-02327-RDB)

Submitted:

June 28, 2011

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

NIEMEYER,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

July 8, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin A. Sifrit, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-7563

Document: 13

Date Filed: 07/08/2011

Page: 2 of 3

A.

Sifrit

to

appeal

the

denying

relief

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

PER CURIAM:
Benjamin
court’s

order

petition.

seeks
on

his

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

district

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Sifrit has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,

we

deny

a

certificate

of

appealability,

deny

Sifrit’s request for appointment of counsel, and dismiss the
appeal.
legal

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions

are

adequately

2

presented

in

the

materials

Appeal: 10-7563

before

Document: 13

the

court

Date Filed: 07/08/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3