Hammonds v. Kenworthy , 234 F. App'x 131 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6267
    JAKIE HAMMONDS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GEORGE KENWORTHY,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02033-H)
    Submitted: July 19, 2007                     Decided:   July 24, 2007
    Before MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jakie Hammonds, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appleton Reeves, NORTH
    CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Jakie Hammonds seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition.               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     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 Hammonds 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: 07-6267

Citation Numbers: 234 F. App'x 131

Judges: Motz, Gregory, Wilkins

Filed Date: 7/24/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024