United States v. Hopkins ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-8235
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
JEFFREY A. HOPKINS,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00267-FDW-DCK-1; 3:04-cr-00268-FDW-CH-
1; 3:09-cv-00227-FDW)
Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeffrey A. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Hopkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing as untimely filed his 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion, denying his motion for a
certificate of appealability, and denying his subsequent motion
for reconsideration of the order denying a certificate of
appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A
prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that
reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the
constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district
court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hopkins 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 the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3