Isaac Gray v. J. Stouffer

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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. [1000044065]. Mailed to: appellant. [16-7558]

Appeal: 16-7558

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7558

ISAAC GRAY,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:15-cv-00029-CCB)

Submitted:

March 14, 2017

Before FLOYD and
Circuit Judge.

HARRIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

March 17, 2017

DAVIS,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaac Gray, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7558

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Isaac

Gray

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.”
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

court’s

debatable

or

a

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

When the district court denies

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

by

that

the

claims

is

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 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
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 deny

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 16-7558

Doc: 9

Filed: 03/17/2017

Pg: 3 of 3

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

DISMISSED

3