Court Opinion

ID: 1013427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:01:09.300608+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:44.911800
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7790

HENRY ERIC HAMILTON,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JAMES V. PEGUESE, Warden,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.      Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(CA-03-2177-AMD)

Submitted:   April 30, 2004                 Decided:   June 10, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Eric Hamilton, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

          Henry Eric Hamilton appeals from the dismissal of his 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition by the district court.    An appeal may

not be taken to this court from the final order in a § 2254

proceeding 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 jurists of

reason 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

          We have reviewed the record and Hamilton’s submissions

and conclude that he has not made the requisite showing.          We

therefore 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 in the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                               - 2 -