Altimont Wilks v. J. Morgan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999385133-2] Originating case number: 1:12-cv-01355-JKB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999460112]. Mailed to: Altimont Wilks. [14-6967]

Appeal: 14-6967

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6967

ALTIMONT M. WILKS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01355-JKB)

Submitted:

October 16, 2014

Decided:

October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Altimont M. Wilks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 14-6967

Doc: 9

Filed: 10/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Altimont M. Wilks seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

of

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

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) (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 Wilks has not made the requisite showing.
deny

Wilks’

motion

dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

for

a

certificate

of

Accordingly, we

appealability

and

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

2

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 14-6967

Doc: 9

materials

before

Filed: 10/22/2014

this

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3