Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07923/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07923-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7923

GOLD LEROY BASS, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden, Western Correctional Institution; 

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. 

(1:08-cv-01839-JFM)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frank M. Dunbaugh, Annapolis, Maryland, for Appellant. Edward 

John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, 

Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7923 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Gold Leroy Bass, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as 

successive and untimely. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 

See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) 

(2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating 

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Bass

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Bass’ 

motion to accelerate case processing, 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 the court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7923 Doc: 14 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 2