Case ID: f-appx_126/html/0116-01.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

Kelvin J. MILES, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION—HAGERSTOWN, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-6004.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted March 25, 2005.
    Decided April 18, 2005.
    Kelvin J. Miles, Appellant pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM.

Kelvin J. Miles, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) and denying his motion for reconsideration. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 338, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. The motion for bail and appointment of counsel is denied. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. The motion to expedite consideration of this appeal is denied as moot.

DISMISSED