Joseph Edwards v. Warden Frank Bishop
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed denying certificate of appealability. Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01888-RDB. Copies to all parties and the district court. . Mailed to: Joseph Edwards. [17-6210]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JOSEPH W. EDWARDS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:15-cv-01888-RDB)
Submitted: June 29, 2017
Decided: July 10, 2017
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anna S. Kelly, William Nelson Sinclair, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON, SLUTKIN &
WHITE, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Joseph W. Edwards 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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
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 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 Edwards has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately 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?