Edward Jefferson v. J. Stouffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-02536-JFM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998780467]. Mailed to: Jefferson. [11-7276]

Appeal: 11-7276

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7276

EDWARD W. JEFFERSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Commissioner; J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:11-cv-02536-JFM)

Submitted:

January 31, 2012

Decided:

February 3, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Edward W. Jefferson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7276

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Edward W. Jefferson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2011) petition.
appealable

unless

a

circuit

certificate of appealability.
A

certificate

of

justice

The order is not

or

judge

issues

a

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

“a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district
debatable

merits,
that

court’s
or

a

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

that

the

claims

constitutional
529

by

is

473,

484

U.S.

(2000); see Miller-El v. 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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

that

We

have

independently

Jefferson

has

not

reviewed

made

the

record

requisite

and

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

Appeal: 11-7276

before

Document: 5

Date Filed: 02/03/2012

the

and

court

argument

would

Page: 3 of 3

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3