Hankins v. Wood

Filing 920080724

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7574 FREEMAN L. HANKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DON WOOD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02046-H) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of judge appealability. See 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." (2000). 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that jurists would find that any assessment of the reasonable constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hankins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hankins' motion for authorization, 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 -

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?