Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07944/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07944-0/pdf.json

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

---

Filed: May 11, 2010 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7944

(1:08-cv-01918-AMD)

ERIC VON POOLE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOHN WOLFE, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of 

the State of Maryland, 

Respondents – Appellees.

O R D E R

The court amends its opinion filed May 3, 2010, as 

follows:

On page 2, lines 15-16 and line 17, the name “Von 

Poole” is corrected to read “Poole.”

For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor

Clerk

Appeal: 09-7944 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/11/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7944

ERIC VON POOLE,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

JOHN WOLFE, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of 

the State of Maryland, 

Respondents – Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-

cv-01918-AMD)

Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010

Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Eric Von Poole, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF 

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7944 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/11/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Eric Von Poole seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (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 

Poole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny

Poole’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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: 09-7944 Doc: 20 Filed: 05/11/2010 Pg: 3 of 3