Court Opinion

ID: 1026315
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:04:26.740932+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:11.464939
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 08-6937

MARC S. CASON, SR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

SHEARIN, Warden, WCI; THE 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.
(1:08-cv-00081-CCB)

Submitted:   July 22, 2008                 Decided:   July 28, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Marc S. Cason, Sr., 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

          Marc S. Cason, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) 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)

(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.     See     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

Cason 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 -