Mark Gregory Handy, Sr. v. Frank B. Bishop, Jr.

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999736638-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999753742-2] Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01820-RDB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999871809]. Mailed to: Mark Gregory Handy Sr. NORTH BRANCH CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION 14100 McMullen Highway, SW Cumberland, MD 21502. [15-8029]

Appeal: 15-8029

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-8029

MARK GREGORY HANDY, SR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:14-cv-01820-RDB)

Submitted:

June 1, 2016

Decided:

June 28, 2016

Before WILKINSON and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mark Gregory Handy, Sr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-8029

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Mark
court’s

order

petition.
or

Gregory

judge

Handy,

denying

relief

seeks
on

to

his

28

appeal
U.S.C.

the

district

§ 2254

(2012)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

Sr.,

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

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
Handy has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis,

deny

as

moot

Handy’s

counsel, and dismiss the appeal.

motion

for

appointment

of

We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
2

Appeal: 15-8029

Doc: 12

Filed: 06/28/2016

Pg: 3 of 3

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

3