Court Opinion

ID: 1013372
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:00:16.129302+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:42.547282
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6544

OLLIE LEMON,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

RONALD HUTCHINSON; J. JOSEPH CURRAN, JR.,
Attorney General for the State of Maryland,

                                          Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (CA-
03-3008-1)

Submitted:   May 27, 2004                   Decided:   June 4, 2004

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ollie Lemon, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Ollie Lemon seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.       Lemon cannot

appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a

certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas

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

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

reviewed the record and conclude Lemon 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 -