Bruce E. Harmeson v. Joseph P. Sacchet

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6030
BRUCE E. HARMESON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
JOSEPH P. SACCHET,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Frederic N. Smalkin, Senior District Judge.
(CA-02-3746-S)
Submitted: May 30, 2003 Decided: June 13, 2003
Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bruce E. Harmeson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Bruce E. Harmeson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a § 2241 proceeding 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 for claims
addressed by a district court 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 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, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.
473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert.
denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Harmeson has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. The motion to amend the informal brief is
granted. 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 of 2 --