Court Opinion

ID: 1012982
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:53:18.156508+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:25.074185
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 03-7757

TITUS THOMAS,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN SMITH; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE
OF MARYLAND,

                                            Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02-
2777-AMD)

Submitted:   March 10, 2004                 Decided:   March 29, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Titus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney
General, Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF
MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Titus Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).

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    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 Thomas 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 -