Court Opinion

ID: 1018839
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:26:40.223317+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.694642
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7957

DARIUS NATHANIEL HOLT,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

NANCY L. ROUSE; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (CA-
05-2127-JFM)

Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 30, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darius Nathaniel Holt, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory D. Alesandro,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Darius   Nathaniel   Holt   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 (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 that Holt 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

                                 - 2 -