Benjamin Sifrit v. John Rowley, (4th Cir. 2011)

Text

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7563

BENJAMIN A. SIFRIT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden, North Branch Correctional

Institution; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of the

State of Maryland,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.

(1:08-cv-02327-RDB)

Submitted: June 28, 2011 Decided: July 8, 2011

Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,

Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin A. Sifrit, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Benjamin A. Sifrit 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 28U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Sifrit has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Sifrit's request for appointment of counsel, 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.

---