Isaac Gray v. J. Stouffer
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999964853-2] Originating case number: 1:15-cv-00029-CCB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: appellant. [16-7558]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner – Appellant,
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
March 14, 2017
Before FLOYD and
March 17, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isaac Gray, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability.
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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
When the district court denies
(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 a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
Slack, 529 U.S.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Gray has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Gray’s motion for appointment of counsel.
We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
Pg: 3 of 3
presented in the materials before 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?