Court Opinion

ID: 1014021
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:10:01.227438+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:27.117549
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6532

JOHNNY DAVID HOLT-BEY,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOSEPH    P.   SACCHET,    Warden,    Maryland
Correctional Institution, Hagerstown,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.   William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-03-2400-1-WMN)

Submitted:   July 19, 2004                 Decided:   August 2, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny David Holt-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

              Johnny   David    Holt-Bey     seeks   to   appeal   the   district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in

a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by

a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that

any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also

debatable or wrong.       See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

(2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,

252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).             We have independently reviewed

the record and conclude that Holt-Bey 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 -