Reginald Van Godwin v. WARDEN, Maryland House of Corrections-Annex

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7528
REGINALD VAN GODWIN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
WARDEN, Maryland House of Corrections-Annex;
ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-02-2926-1-WDQ)
Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: March 26, 2004
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Van Godwin, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).

-- 1 of 2 --

- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Van Godwin seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. Godwin
cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues
a certificate of appealability, and 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 habeas
appellant meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
jurists would find 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, 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 Godwin 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 of 2 --