UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6550
ANTHONY QUINTIN KELLY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BOBBY P. SHEARIN, Warden; DOUGLAS F. GANSLER, Attorney
General,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00262-AW)
Submitted: July 21, 2011 Decided: July 26, 2011
Before NIEMEYER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anthony Quintin Kelly, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Anthony Quintin Kelly 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)(A) (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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record
and conclude that Kelly has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny as
moot Kelly’s motion to withdraw his motion to extend time to
file informal opening brief which was granted on May 11, 2011,
deny all of Kelly’s other pending motions, and dismiss the
appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
2
legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3