Court Opinion

ID: 856018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-03-22 19:11:03.542966+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:02:20.786293
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 12-7776

ROYAL DIAMOND DOWNS,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

STATE OF MARYLAND; PERRY PHELPS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01085-CCB)

Submitted:   February 28, 2013             Decided:   March 22, 2013

Before KEENAN, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Royal Diamond Downs, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Royal      Diamond     Downs       seeks   to    appeal       the       district

court’s    orders      dismissing    as    untimely      his      28   U.S.C.        §   2254

(2006) petition and denying his motion to alter or amend the

judgment.        These    orders    are    not    appealable       unless       a    circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                              See 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).                 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) (2006).                     When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard    by    demonstrating        that    reasonable       jurists          would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);   see     Miller-El   v.    Cockrell,        537    U.S.    322,       336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Downs has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                     We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                           2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3