Jerold Harris v. Anthony Hathaway, III

Filing 920090318

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6062 JEROLD ALAN HARRIS, Petitioner Appellant, v. ANTHONY HATHAWAY, III, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-hc-02018-FL) Submitted: March 12, 2009 Decided: March 18, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jerold Alan Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jerold Alan Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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 Harris has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal certificate dispense appealability oral argument appeal. and with because facts 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?