Filed: Mar. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7220 TYRONE WEST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 04-223-RDB) Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone West, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7220 TYRONE WEST, Petitioner - Appellant, versus J. MICHAEL STOUFFER, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA- 04-223-RDB) Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tyrone West, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman B..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7220
TYRONE WEST,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
J. MICHAEL STOUFFER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA-
04-223-RDB)
Submitted: February 22, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Tyrone West, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone West 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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. See 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 West 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 -