Frasch v. Koppel

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6636 DOUGLAS ALAN FRASCH, Petitioner - Appellant, v. ROBERT KOPPEL, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. J. Frederick Motz, District Judge. (1:03-cv-02482-JFM) Submitted: January 30, 2009 Decided: February 13, 2009 Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Warren Lease, SMITH, LEASE & GOLDSTEIN, LLC, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellant. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Frasch seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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) (2006). 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. See 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 that Frasch 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