Opinion
No. 19-6607
07-23-2019
JAMES CALHOUN-EL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ALLEN GANG, Warden; JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondents - Appellees.
James A. Calhoun-El, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:19-cv-00777-RDB) Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James A. Calhoun-El, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
James A. Calhoun-El seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) motion for relief from the judgment dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (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); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004), abrogated in part on other grounds by United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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 Calhoun-El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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