Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06311/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06311-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 540
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6311

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR., a/k/a Anwarri Shabazz,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

DONALD R. HOLBROOK, Superintendent; THE U.S.A.; WASHINGTON, 

DC; THE UNITED STATES; THE STATE OF WASHINGTON,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

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

Judge. (1:15-cv-00250-CCB)

Submitted: June 19, 2015 Decided: July 6, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6311 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

John Robert Demos, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal 

the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a 

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 (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 

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

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. The motions for appointment 

of counsel, to clarify jurisdiction, and to clarify, amend, or 

modify are denied. We dispense with oral argument because the 

Appeal: 15-6311 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6311 Doc: 19 Filed: 07/06/2015 Pg: 3 of 3