Hopkins v. Young , 385 F. App'x 334 ( 2010 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-6358
ANDRE FIDEL HOPKINS,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
S. K. YOUNG, Warden; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON,
Director, Department of Corrections,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00901-AJT-JFA)
Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Andre Fidel Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andre Fidel Hopkins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as
untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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). When the
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural
grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85. 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 further deny Hopkins’ motions for leave to file
all district court documents and to order the record. 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