Patrick Quesenberry v. Frank B. Bishop, Jr.
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Denying motion to suspend [999890140-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999843971-2]; granting Motion to use the original record [999877140-2]. Originating case number: 1:14-cv-01375-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. [999949361]. Mailed to: Patrick J. Quesenberry. [16-6752]
Appeal: 16-6752
Doc: 14
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6752
PATRICK J. QUESENBERRY,
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-01375-RDB)
Submitted:
October 13, 2016
Decided:
October 18, 2016
Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Patrick J. Quesenberry, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Appeal: 16-6752
Doc: 14
Filed: 10/18/2016
Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Patrick J. Quesenberry 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 appealability.
(2012).
See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
28
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 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
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
constitutional right.
a
debatable
claim
of
the
denial
of
a
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Quesenberry has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we
grant Quesenberry’s motion to use the original record, but deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We deny
Quesenberry’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay of
the appeal pending further state court proceedings.
We dispense
with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
2
Appeal: 16-6752
Doc: 14
adequately
Filed: 10/18/2016
presented
in
the
Pg: 3 of 3
materials
before
this
court
and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?