Case Name: Kamal Dorchy GOODWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert KOPPEL, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-22
Citations: 230 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 07-6471
Parties: Kamal Dorchy GOODWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert KOPPEL, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
Kamal Dorchy GOODWIN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Robert KOPPEL, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-6471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 22, 2007.
Kamal Dorchy Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kamal Dorchy Goodwin seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and requests the appointment of counsel on appeal. An order denying § 2254 relief 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 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. 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 Goodwin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the request for the appointment of counsel 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.