Court Opinion

ID: 1023973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:26:19.889674+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:26:46.111438
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6962

EMMANUEL EDWARD SEWELL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

KATHLEEN S. GREEN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.    Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge.
(8:07-cv-00667-DKC)

Submitted:   October 11, 2007             Decided:   October 17, 2007

Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant Pro Se. James Everett Williams,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Emmanuel Edward Sewell seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely.    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

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 Sewell 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 -