Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06752/USCOURTS-ca4-16-06752-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 16-6752

PATRICK J. QUESENBERRY,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:14-cv-01375-RDB)

Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patrick J. Quesenberry, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6752 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Patrick J. Quesenberry 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 

Quesenberry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 

grant Quesenberry’s motion to use the original record, but deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny 

Quesenberry’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay of 

the appeal pending further state court proceedings. We dispense 

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

Appeal: 16-6752 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 2 of 3
3

adequately presented in the materials before this court and 

argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 16-6752 Doc: 14 Filed: 10/18/2016 Pg: 3 of 3