Court Opinion

ID: 1017384
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:04:11.409006+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:54.212328
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 05-6554

LEWIS RAY PHARES,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

                                             Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-99-2814-AW-8)

Submitted:   September 12, 2005            Decided:   October 21, 2005

Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lewis Ray Phares, Appellant Pro Se.    Ann Norman Bosse, Rachel
Marblestone Kamins, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

              Lewis Ray Phares, a state prisoner, 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   both     that   the   district    court’s       assessment    of   his

constitutional      claims      is    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 Phares 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 -