Colbert v. Conroy (4th Cir. 2003)

Federal Circuits, 4th Cir. (May 28, 2003)

Docket number: 03-6450


Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/colbert-v-conroy-18202453
Id. vLex: VLEX-18202453

Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)

Document language

Search in this document

Sponsored Ads:


Citations:

Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6450 TYRONE COLBERT, Petitioner - Appellant, versus

PATRICK CONROY, Warden; JOHN JOSEPH CURRAN,

JR., Attorney General of the State of

Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Deborah K. Chasanow, District Judge. (CA-

-1638-8-DKC)

Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 28, 2003

Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tyrone Colbert, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney

General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM

Tyrone Colbert seeks to appeal the district court§ 2254 (2000) petition. Colbert cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appealability will not issue absent a § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas petitioner meets this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell , U.S. , 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Colbert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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

Sponsored Ads:




Activate your free trial now

Make your order

Need help? Contact us

Try vLex for FREE for 3 days

Access legal information from United States including:

  • Constitutions
  • Forms and Contracts
  • Legal Books and Journals
  • Case Law
  • News and Business
  • Regulations
  • U.S. Code

Try vLex without any commitment for 3 days and see why you need it.

3

days of Free Access



Other documents:
The Real Deal Colts Sprint Past Upstart Bengals to Go 10-0 | Health Care REIT, Inc. Prices $250 Million of 5.875% Senior Notes Due 2015. | Calhoun Et Al. v. Purvis., 214 Ga. App. 112, 446 S.E.2d 752 (1994) | Orden MAM/1135/2006, de 30 de marzo, por la que se resuelve convocatoria pública efectuada por ... | Beschluss n B863/86 of Verfassungsgerichtshof, of November 29, 1986 | regulamento ce n.º 204/2008 da comissão de 4 de março de 2008 que fixa os direitos de importação aplicáveis ao arroz semibra... | 5 CFR 831.2010 - Transfers between retirement systems. | nº 2001.36.00.006254-4 of tribunal regional federal da 1a região of december 16 2003 | arrêté du 25 avril 2008 modifiant l article a 40 du code de procédure pénale et relatif à la liste des autorités administratives et judiciaires avec lesque... | arrete du 12 octobre 2000 portant nomination d un commissaire du gouvernement aupres de l agence de l eau adour-garonne | His New-Found Love Interest [Pune Times]