Court Opinion

ID: 3205923
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2016-05-23 19:01:07.901182+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:21.905292
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 16-6353

DANIEL CARTER,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

WARDEN RICHARD MILLER; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, The Attorney
General of the State of Maryland; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND,

                 Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. George L. Russell, III, District Judge.
(1:15-cv-02820-GLR)

Submitted:   May 18, 2016                   Decided:   May 23, 2016

Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Daniel Carter, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Daniel Carter seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues      a      certificate         of         appealability.             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

Carter has not made the requisite showing.                      Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis,       and   dismiss    the        appeal.       We    dispense      with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED

                                  3