Rodney Alexander v. Bobby Shearin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01388-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999132187]. Mailed to: Rodney Alexander. [13-6452]

Appeal: 13-6452

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/18/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6452

RODNEY JAMES ALEXANDER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01388-GLR)

Submitted:

June 13, 2013

Decided:

June 18, 2013

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney James Alexander, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 13-6452

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/18/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Rodney James Alexander seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

§ 2254

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Alexander has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 13-6452

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 06/18/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3