Case ID: f-appx_678/html/0094-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

McKenzie HOPKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia GOINS-JOHNSON, Warden, Patuxent Institution, Jessup, Maryland; Brian E. Frosh, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Defendants-Appellees, and Maryland, Respondent.
    No. 16-7410
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: February 9, 2017
    Decided: February 24, 2017
    McKenzie Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.
    . Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,' Maryland, for Appel-lees.
    Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

McKenzie Hopkins 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 certifícate 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hopkins’ motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Hopkins’ motion to assign counsel. We dispense with oral argumerit because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED