Patrick Quesenberry v. Frank Bishop, Jr., No. 16-6752 (4th Cir. 2016)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 16-6752 PATRICK J. QUESENBERRY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. FRANK B. BISHOP, JR.; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (1:14-cv-01375-RDB) Submitted: October 13, 2016 Decided: October 18, 2016 Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Patrick J. Quesenberry, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Patrick J. Quesenberry seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. (2012). 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.” U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 28 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 (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 constitutional right. a debatable claim of the denial of a Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Quesenberry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we grant Quesenberry’s motion to use the original record, but deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Quesenberry’s motions for appointment of counsel and for a stay of the appeal pending further state court proceedings. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 2 adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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.