UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8118
KEENAN KESTER COFIELD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; BALTIMORE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; STATE OF MARYLAND; MARYLAND DIVISION OF
CORRECTIONS; BALTIMORE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT; UNITED STATES
MARSHAL SERVICE; MARYLAND PAROLE COMMISSION; UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-01178-CCB)
Submitted: March 28, 2013 Decided: April 2, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Keenan Kester Cofield, Appellant Pro Se. Michael O’Connor
Doyle, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keenan Kester Cofield, while in federal custody,
sought to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition in
which he challenged his Maryland state sentence and detainer.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Cofield 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3