Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06624/USCOURTS-ca4-24-06624-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of the State of Maryland
Appellee
Baltimore City Circuit Court
Appellee
Randolph McDowell
Appellant
State of Maryland
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 24-6624

RANDOLPH MCDOWELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT; ATTORNEY 

GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. 

Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01382-LKG)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph McDowell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6624 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Randolph McDowell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254 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). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 

U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDowell has not 

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and 

dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion requesting the appointment of counsel. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6624 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2