Court Opinion

ID: 152057
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-08-02 19:59:43+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:24:27.175665
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 10-6437

MAHMOUD A. BEN-STONE,

                 Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GEORGE HINKLE,

                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00043-JCC-IDD)

Submitted:   July 22, 2010                 Decided:   August 2, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mahmoud A. Ben-Stone, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Mahmoud    A.   Ben-Stone       seeks   to     appeal      the    district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition

without prejudice for failure to exhaust state court remedies.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues     a     certificate     of    appealability.               See     28     U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006).           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) (2006).                   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 Ben-Stone 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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3