Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06872/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06872-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Kenneth Horning
Appellee
The Attorney General of the State of Maryland
Appellee
Kerry Lee Woodard
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6872

KERRY LEE WOODARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH HORNING; 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. 

(1:07-cv-03463-RDB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: May 10, 2010

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kerry Lee Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6872 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kerry Lee Woodard seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. See 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 Woodard

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: 09-6872 Doc: 13 Filed: 05/10/2010 Pg: 2 of 2