UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7839
DAVID DAVON GOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 14-6213
DAVID DAVON GOLDEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN BOBBY SHEARIN; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:11-cv-00086-PJM)
Submitted: March 26, 2014 Decided: April 1, 2014
Before KEENAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Davon Golden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
David Davon Golden seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition
and denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are
not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). 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 Golden has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny Golden’s motion to appoint counsel, deny Golden’s motion
for a hearing en banc, deny a certificate of appealability, deny
leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We
3
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4