Randolph McDowell v. State of Maryland

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit December 10, 2024

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 24-6624 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 1 of 2

No. 24-6624

Petitioner - Appellant,

STATE OF MARYLAND; BALTIMORE CITY CIRCUIT COURT; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Lydia Kay Griggsby, District Judge. (1:22-cv-01382-LKG)

Submitted: December 5, 2024 Decided: December 10, 2024

Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Randolph McDowell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 24-6624 Doc: 10 Filed: 12/10/2024 Pg: 2 of 2

Randolph McDowell seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2254

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)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis,

, 115-17 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler,

565 U.S. 134, 140-41

(2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel,

529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McDowell has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion requesting the appointment of counsel. 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.