Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06872/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06872-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 15-6872

RICHARD DEBLOIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN; OFFICE OF THE 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-00100-CCB)

Submitted: October 27, 2015 Decided: November 5, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ricard DeBlois, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 15-6872 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard DeBlois seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition and 

denying his motion for reconsideration under Fed. R. Civ. P. 

59(e). The orders are 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 

DeBlois 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: 15-6872 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/05/2015 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: 15-6872 Doc: 10 Filed: 11/05/2015 Pg: 3 of 3