Aaron Roberts v. J. Morgan
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-04011-GLR. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Aaron Roberts. [16-7365]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
AARON B. ROBERTS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
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.
March 8, 2017
March 15, 2017
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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of
§ 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a
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
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.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?