Court Opinion

ID: 2744673
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-10-22 19:03:21.066025+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T10:10:17.169585
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-6967

ALTIMONT M. WILKS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

J. PHILLIP MORGAN, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.      James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01355-JKB)

Submitted:   October 16, 2014              Decided:   October 22, 2014

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Altimont M. Wilks, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

               Altimont M. Wilks seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) 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) (2012).            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) (2012).                   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 Wilks has not made the requisite showing.                          Accordingly, we

deny    Wilks’     motion    for    a    certificate        of    appealability         and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the

facts    and    legal     contentions        are   adequately      presented      in    the

                                              2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3