Filed: May 11, 2010
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7944
(1:08-cv-01918-AMD)
ERIC VON POOLE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN WOLFE, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney General of
the State of Maryland,
Respondents – Appellees.
O R D E R
The court amends its opinion filed May 3, 2010, as
follows:
On page 2, lines 15-16 and line 17, the name “Von
Poole” is corrected to read “Poole.”
For the Court – By Direction
/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7944
ERIC VON POOLE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN WOLFE, 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. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08-
cv-01918-AMD)
Submitted: April 29, 2010 Decided: May 3, 2010
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eric Von Poole, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Von Poole 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) (2006). 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
Poole has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
Poole’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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