Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07983/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07983-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Attorney General of Maryland
Appellee
Warren Chase
Appellant
Maryland Division of Correction (DOC)
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7983

WARREN CHASE, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTION (DOC); ATTORNEY GENERAL OF 

MARYLAND, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. 

(1:09-cv-00955-CCB) 

Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 22, 2010 

Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Warren Chase, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7983 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/22/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Warren Chase 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 Chase 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: 09-7983 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/22/2010 Pg: 2 of 2