UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7322
RAY THOMAS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
LLOYD L. WATERS, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, Senior District Judge.
(CA-03-413-MJG)
Submitted: February 12, 2004 Decided: February 20, 2004
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ray Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ray Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254
proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).
A prisoner satisfies 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, 537 U.S. 322,
336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.
Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
By failing to assert on appeal any of the claims that were
raised and rejected by the district court, Thomas has failed to
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to
challenge the district court’s denial of § 2254 relief. 4th Cir.
R. 34(b). Moreover, we decline to address the issues Thomas raises
for the first time on appeal. See Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d
246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised for the first
time on appeal will not be considered absent exceptional
circumstances).
- 2 -
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
- 3 -