Case Name: William MARROW-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-31
Citations: 173 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 06-6196
Parties: William MARROW-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 173
Pages: 271–272

Head Matter:
William MARROW-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-6196.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 23, 2006.
Decided March 31, 2006.
William Marrow-El, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Marrow-El seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marrow-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Marrow-El's motion for release from custody. 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