Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07135/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07135-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of Maryland
Appellee
James Smith

Darris Alaric Ware
Appellant
John Wolfe
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7135

DARRIS ALARIC WARE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND; JOHN WOLFE, Warden,

Respondents – Appellees,

and

JAMES SMITH, Warden,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:07-

cv-01160-AMD)

Submitted: June 1, 2010 Decided: June 4, 2010

Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darris Alaric Ware, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7135 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Darris Alaric Ware 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). 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 Ware 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

Appeal: 09-7135 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7135 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/04/2010 Pg: 3 of 3