Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07790/USCOURTS-ca4-14-07790-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 14-7790

JASON ERIC GRIMES,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

WAYNE A. WEBB, Warden, Maryland Correctional Institution at 

Hagerstown; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District 

Judge. (1:12-cv-01603-CCB)

Submitted: March 13, 2015 Decided: March 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Simon Andrew Latcovich, James Abelson Macleod, WILLIAMS & 

CONNOLLY, LLP, Washington, D.C., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-7790 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/26/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Eric Grimes 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 Grimes 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 

Appeal: 14-7790 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/26/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 14-7790 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/26/2015 Pg: 3 of 3