David Michael Montgomery v. State of Maryland

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6912
DAVID MICHAEL MONTGOMERY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
and
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Party-in-Interest,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Ellen L. Hollander, District Judge. (1:17-cv-01427-ELH)
Submitted: October 17, 2017 Decided: October 20, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Michael Montgomery, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas E. Dernoga, OFFICE OF THE
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
David Michael Montgomery, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable
unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Montgomery has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny Montgomery’s motion to appoint counsel, and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --