Case ID: f-appx_582/html/0201-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Sean D. WOODSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE’S ATTORNEY FOR the State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 14-6927.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Aug. 21, 2014.
    Decided: Aug. 26, 2014.
    Sean D. Woodson, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
   PER CURIAM:

Sean D. Woodson seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and his motion to alter or amend that judgment. See Fed. R. Civ. p. 59(e). The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 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).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Woodson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and summary reversal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.

DISMISSED.