UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7665
DOUGLAS SCOTT AREY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.
(8:05-cv-00637-AW)
Submitted: February 7, 2007 Decided: February 16, 2007
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Douglas Scott Arey, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, Edward John
Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore,
Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Scott Arey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order and judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as
untimely and the district court’s order denying Arey’s motion for
reconsideration. Arey also requests that his case be remanded to
the district court for consideration of evidence he received from
the state during the pendency of this appeal. The order of the
district court is not appealable 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude Arey has not made
the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. Furthermore, we deny the
motion to remand. Finally, we dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
- 2 -
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -