Court Opinion

ID: 1021579
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:09:00.664212+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:12:37.795590
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 06-7725

HARVEY EUGENE PRITCHETT,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JAMES S. SMITH, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv-
00213-AMD)

Submitted: January 18, 2007                 Decided:   January 24, 2007

Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harvey Eugene Pritchett, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            Harvey Eugene Pritchett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.    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 Pritchett 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 -