Keenan Cofield v. Federal Bureau of Prisons, No. 12-8118 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-8118 KEENAN KESTER COFIELD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DIVISION OF CORRECTIONS; BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; UNITED STATES MARSHAL SERVICE; MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:12-cv-01178-CCB) Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Keenan Kester Cofield, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Keenan Kester Cofield, while in federal custody, sought to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition in which he challenged his Maryland state sentence and detainer. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). issue absent a of appealability. U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. 28 showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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 Cofield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument 2 because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3