Ralph Wilkins v. John Wolfe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-01353-RWT. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999457969]. Mailed to: Ralph Wilkins. [14-6847]

Appeal: 14-6847

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/20/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6847

RALPH EDWARD WILKINS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
JOHN WOLFE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, Senior District Judge.
(8:14-cv-01353-RWT)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 20, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ralph Edward Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6847

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/20/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Ralph
court’s

order

petition.

Edward
denying

Wilkins
relief

seeks

on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

the

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) (2012).

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 Wilkins 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: 14-6847

Doc: 9

contentions

Filed: 10/20/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3