Aaron B. Roberts v. Warden J. Phillip Morgan

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-04011-GLR Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999929906]. Mailed to: Aaron B. Roberts MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL TRAINING CENTER 18800 Roxbury Road Hagerstown, MD 21746. [16-6739]

Appeal: 16-6739

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6739

AARON B. ROBERTS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General
of the State of Maryland,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-04011-GLR)

Submitted:

September 13, 2016

Decided:

September 15, 2016

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron B. Roberts, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-6739

Doc: 7

Filed: 09/15/2016

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

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
Roberts 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: 16-6739

Doc: 7

contentions

Filed: 09/15/2016

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3