Sean Woodson v. State's Attorney

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999378249-2]; denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999381110-2]; denying Motion for summary reversal [999381110-3] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01189-JKB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999422904]. Mailed to: Sean Woodson. [14-6927]

Appeal: 14-6927

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6927

SEAN D. WOODSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-01189-JKB)

Submitted:

August 21, 2014

Decided:

August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sean D. Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6927

Doc: 13

Filed: 08/26/2014

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Sean D. Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition
and his motion to alter or amend that judgment.
Civ. p. 59(e).
justice

or

See Fed. R.

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit

judge

issues

a

certificate

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).

of

appealability.

28

A certificate of appealability

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a
constitutional right.”

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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);

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

(2003).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Woodson has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Woodson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and
summary reversal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED
2