William Scriber v. Robert Koppel, No. 09-6386 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6386 WILLIAM DUANE SCRIBER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT KOPPEL; MARYLAND, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:07-cv-03188-RDB) Submitted: July 10, 2009 Decided: July 28, 2009 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William Duane Scriber, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: William court s order petition. Duane denying Scriber relief seeks on to his 28 appeal the U.S.C. § 2254 § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner reasonable (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue district a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Scriber has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Scriber s motions for a copy of the deny We also transcript Government expense and for appointment of counsel. a at 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.