Court Opinion

ID: 1013961
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:09:22.497022+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:19.040251
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6623

HILDA L. FLOYD, Mother of Minor Child E.C.,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THE STATE OF MARYLAND; ATTORNEY        GENERAL,
Criminal Appeals Division,

                                           Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
04-287-1-RDB)

Submitted:   July 29, 2004                 Decided:   August 5, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Hilda L. Floyd, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Hilda L. Floyd seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on the habeas corpus petition she filed on behalf of

her son, who is a Maryland inmate.         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 litigant 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 Floyd has not made the

requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, 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 -