Sean Woodson v. State's Attorney, No. 14-6927 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6927 SEAN D. WOODSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE'S ATTORNEY FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01189-JKB) Submitted: August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014 Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sean D. Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Sean D. Woodson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and his motion to alter or amend that judgment. Civ. p. 59(e). justice or See Fed. R. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). of appealability. 28 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 Cockrell, (2000); see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Woodson s motion for a certificate of appealability and summary reversal, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. facts and materials legal before We dispense with oral argument because the contentions are adequately this and argument court presented would not in the 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.