Paul Wallace v. the Attorney General of the State of Maryland; Robert Koppel

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8434
PAUL WALLACE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND; ROBERT
KOPPEL,
Respondents - Appellees,
and
JOHN A. ROWLEY,
Respondent,
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-03406-CCB)
Submitted: July 29, 2009 Decided: August 11, 2009
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Paul Wallace, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Paul Wallace seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
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). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court 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 Wallace
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 --