Court Opinion

ID: 1027430
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:23:14.269732+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:28:42.287547
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-8146

JOHN ROBERT DEMOS, JR.,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:08-cv-02162-CCB)

Submitted:    December 2, 2008             Decided:   December 16, 2008

Before TRAXLER and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Robert Demos, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              John Robert Demos, Jr., a Washington state prisoner,

seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition.              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 prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating

that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the

constitutional       claims   by   the   district    court       is   debatable      or

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district

court is likewise debatable.             Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S.

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).                            We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Demos 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