UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6538
BILLY G. ASEMANI,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
WARDEN FRANK BISHOP; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF
MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:13-cv-00925-RDB)
Submitted: August 26, 2014 Decided: September 10, 2014
Before KING and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Billy G. Asemani, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Billy G. Asemani seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as
time-barred. 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) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 Asemani has not made the requisite showing. The record
supports the district court’s alternative conclusion that
Asemani failed to exhaust his claims in state court, and Asemani
concedes as much. Further, the record supports the conclusion
that Asemani did not qualify for equitable tolling.
2
Accordingly, we deny Asemani’s motion to appoint 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3