Court Opinion

ID: 1022808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:28:29.344962+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:18:51.877113
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6471

KAMAL DORCHY GOODWIN,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, District Judge.
(8:06-cv-03067-PJM)

Submitted: June 15, 2007                    Decided:   June 22, 2007

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kamal Dorchy Goodwin, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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 (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 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

                                      - 2 -