Court Opinion

ID: 9386042
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-11 13:00:25.99104+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:51.840711
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 20-7325      Doc: 28         Filed: 04/07/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 20-7325

        STEPHEN M. COOKE, JR.,

                            Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        ALLEN GANG, Warden; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL,

                            Respondents - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
        Stephanie A. Gallagher, District Judge. (1:19-cv-03256-SAG)

        Submitted: March 15, 2023                                         Decided: April 7, 2023

        Before DIAZ, Circuit Judge, MOTZ and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judges.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Michael E. Lawlor, Nicholas George Madiou, BRENNAN MCKENNA & LAWLOR,
        Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellant. Andrew John DiMiceli, Assistant Attorney General,
        Daniel John Jawor, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
        GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 20-7325       Doc: 28        Filed: 04/07/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Stephen M. Cooke, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

        his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

        issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

        prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

        district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

        Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

        473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and the parties’ informal briefs, and we

        conclude that Cooke 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 this

        court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                       DISMISSED

                                                     2