Richard DeBlois v. Warden

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:12-cv-00100-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999693560]. Mailed to: Richard DeBlois. [15-6872]

Appeal: 15-6872

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6872

RICHARD DEBLOIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:12-cv-00100-CCB)

Submitted:

October 27, 2015

Decided:

November 5, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricard DeBlois, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6872

Doc: 10

Filed: 11/05/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Richard DeBlois seeks to appeal the district court’s orders
denying

relief

on

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

(2012)

petition

and

denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P.
59(e).

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

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
DeBlois has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 15-6872

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 11/05/2015

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

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

3