UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-8133
KQLMSTRONG AXUMEL EL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
DOUGLAS F. GANGSLER, State of Maryland Attorney General;
MARTIN O'MALLEY, State of Maryland Governor; ANTHONY BROWN,
State of Maryland Lieutenant Governor; H. GARY BASS, Judge;
BARBARA B. WAXMAN, Judge; JOHN HARGROVE, JR., Judge; CAROLYN
SHRUGGS, Acting Warden; MARION TUTHILL, Warden,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. James K. Bredar, District Judge.
(1:12-cv-03198-JKB)
Submitted: April 18, 2013 Decided: April 22, 2013
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Kqlmstrong Axumel El, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kqlmstrong Axumel El, a state prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28
U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition. 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 Axumel El has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Axumel El’s motion
to expedite, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3