Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07365/USCOURTS-ca4-16-07365-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Brian E. Frosh
Appellee
J. Phillip Morgan
Appellee
Aaron B. Roberts
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-7365

AARON B. ROBERTS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN J. PHILLIP MORGAN; BRIAN E. FROSH, Attorney General 

of the State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge. 

(1:15-cv-04011-GLR)

Submitted: March 8, 2017 Decided: March 15, 2017

Before TRAXLER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aaron B. Roberts, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 16-7365 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/15/2017 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Aaron B. Roberts seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 

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 

Roberts 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: 16-7365 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/15/2017 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: 16-7365 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/15/2017 Pg: 3 of 3