Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07562/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07562-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 07-7562

LEROY CARMAN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

KATHLEEN GREEN, Warden; OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY

GENERAL, 

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District

Judge. (1:07-cv-00738-WMN)

Submitted: December 7, 2007 Decided: January 8, 2008

Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Carman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7562 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Carman, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The

order is not appealable 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 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 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. 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 Carman 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 contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 07-7562 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 2