Rommell Riggins v. John Wolfe
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999042190-2]; denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 8:12-cv-00930-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999117331]. Mailed to: Rommell A. Riggins. [13-6144]
Appeal: 13-6144
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6144
ROMMELL RIGGINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN WOLFE,
MARYLAND,
Warden;
ATTORNEY
GENERAL
FOR
THE
STATE
OF
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:12-cv-00930-PJM)
Submitted:
May 23, 2013
Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.
AGEE,
Decided:
Circuit
Judges,
and
May 29, 2013
HAMILTON,
Senior
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Rommell A. Riggins, Appellant Pro Se.
Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 13-6144
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Rommell Riggins 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
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue
absent
“a
of
appealability.
28
U.S.C.
A certificate of appealability will not
substantial
constitutional right.”
See
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.
Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Riggins has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Riggins’ motion to
appoint counsel, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
Appeal: 13-6144
Doc: 8
Filed: 05/29/2013
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
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?