Hall v. Baskerville , 117 F. App'x 285 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7603
    JAMES DOUGLAS HALL, JR.,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden    of   Powhatan
    Correctional Center,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-313-3)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 28, 2004
    Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    James Douglas Hall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Walter Kilgore,
    Attorney General, Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General,
    Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James Douglas Hall, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).   The order is not appealable unless a circuit
    justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).   A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    , 336-38 (2003);
    Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).      We have independently reviewed the
    record and conclude that Hall 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
    contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7603

Citation Numbers: 117 F. App'x 285

Judges: Michael, King, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/28/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024