Kyeem King v. State of Maryland - Affirmation of District Court Order

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES CO URT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH C IRCUIT No. 25-6930 KYEEM KING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. STATE OF MARYLA ND; PRINCE G EORGES COUNTY; DETECTIVE JOH N PADDY, Respondents - Appelle es. Appeal from the Unite d States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Deborah K. Chasanow, Senior District Ju dge. (1:25- cv -02088-D KC) Submitted: February 1 7, 2026 Decided: February 20, 2026 Before QUATTLEBA UM, RUSHING, and BENJAMIN, Circui t Judges. Affirmed in part and di smissed in part by unp ublished per curiam opinion. Kyeem King, Appella nt Pro Se. Andrew J ohn DiMiceli, Assista nt Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE ATT ORNEY GENERAL O F MARYLAND, Balti more, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding prec edent in this circuit.

2 PER CURIAM: Kyeem King seeks to appeal the district c ourt’s order granting t he State’s motion to stay King’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 proceedings an d denying King’s moti ons for assignment of counsel and for bail or release. This c ourt may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and certain int erlocutory and collatera l orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292; Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 545 - 46 (1949). The portion of the district court’s order granting the State’s moti on for a stay and denying King’s motion for ass ignment of coun sel is neither a final order nor an appealabl e interlocutory or collate ral order. See Kell v. Benzon, 9 25 F.3d 448, 4 67 (10th Cir. 2019) (stay order); Miller v. Simmons, 81 4 F.2d 962, 964 (4th Cir. 1987) (assignment of counsel). To the extent King appeals the district court’s denial of hi s moti on for bail or relea se, we have reviewed the record and discern no abuse of discretion. See Pa gan v. United States, 353 F.3d 1343, 1345 -46, 1345 n.4 (11th Cir. 2003) (collecting cas es and holding order denying motion for release on bail is an appealable collateral or der); Pouncy v. Palmer, 993 F.3d 461, 463 (6th Cir. 2021) (stating standard of review). Accordingly, we den y King’s motions for bail or release, for an injunction, for assignment of counsel, and for production of transcripts at government expense; deny as unnecessary King’s motion for a certificate of appealability; * affirm the district court’ s denial of King’s motio n for bail or release; an d dismiss the remainder of the appeal for lack * See P ouncy, 993 F.3 d at 465 (“Appeals from deni ed bail motio ns amount to collateral orders that do not require a cer tificate of appealability.”); Illarramendi v. Un ited States, 906 F.3d 268, 2 70 (2d Cir. 2018) (sam e).

3 of jurisdiction. We di spense with oral argument be cause the facts and legal conte ntions are adequately presente d in the materials before this court and argume nt would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED IN PART, DISMISSED IN PART