Davis v. Johnson , 115 F. App'x 160 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7546
    FRANKLIN E. HALL,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
    Judge. (CA-03-1491-1)
    Submitted:   December 9, 2004           Decided:     December 17, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Franklin E. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.      Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Franklin E. Hall seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in
    a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by
    a district court 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
    (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: 04-7546

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 160

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/17/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024