UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6091
JARMAL JOHNSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD HUTCHINSON, Assistant Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(CA-03-2884-RDB)
Submitted: September 16, 2005 Decided: October 4, 2005
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jarmal Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY
GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Jarmal Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment pursuant to Fed.
R. Civ. P. 59(e), following his unsuccessful petition under 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final
order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or
judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th
Cir. 2004). 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). We have independently reviewed the
record and conclude that Johnson 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
- 2 -