James Reed, Jr. v. Bobby Shearin, No. 13-6900 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6900 JAMES E. REED, JR., a/k/a James Bonnett, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Warden BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:13-cv-00091-JKB) Submitted: November 22, 2013 Decided: December 3, 2013 Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. James E. Reed, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Michael O Connor Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: James E. Reed, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. appealable unless a circuit certificate of appealability. A certificate of justice The order is not or judge issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 Reed has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because 2 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3