Raymond Hinton v. Frank Bishop

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Certificate of appealability denied. Originating case number: 8:14-cv-02818-PWG. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999686737]. Mailed to: Raymond Hinton. [15-6879]

Appeal: 15-6879

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6879

RAYMOND C. HINTON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
FRANK BISHOP;
MARYLAND,

THE

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OF

THE

STATE

OF

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Paul W. Grimm, District Judge.
(8:14-cv-02818-PWG)

Submitted:

October 9, 2015

Decided:

October 27, 2015

Before MOTZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond C. Hinton, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6879

Doc: 8

Filed: 10/27/2015

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Raymond
order

Hinton

dismissing

petition.
or

C.

judge

as

to

untimely

appeal

his

the

28

district

U.S.C.

court’s

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

seeks

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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
Hinton has not made the requisite showing.
a

certificate

dispense

with

of

appealability

oral

argument

and

dismiss

because

2

Accordingly, we deny

the

the

appeal.

facts

and

We
legal

Appeal: 15-6879

Doc: 8

contentions

Filed: 10/27/2015

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3