Court Opinion

ID: 4418562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2019-07-19 20:00:31.759026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:24:47.791604
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                      UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                          FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 19-6616

DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; WARDEN,
ROXBURY CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

                    Respondents - Appellees,

             and

JUDGE THOMAS FLATER STANSFIELD; JERRY BARNS, State’s Attorney
Prosecutor; JUDGE J. BARRY HUGHES,

                    Respondents.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:18-cv-00601-ELH)

Submitted: July 16, 2019                                        Decided: July 19, 2019

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                            2
PER CURIAM:

       David Michael Montgomery seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing

as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Montgomery 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 this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED

                                             3