Court Opinion

ID: 2803355
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-05-26 19:01:04.394637+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:50:04.857501
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 14-7819

WAYMAN N. WITCHER,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,

                Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:12-cv-03085-WDQ)

Submitted:   May 21, 2015                  Decided:   May 26, 2015

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Wayman N. Witcher, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Wayman    N.      Witcher   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

Witcher 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

                                              2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3