Albert Arrington v. Hinkele
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
ALBERT J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. HINKELE, Warden of G.R.C.C., Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-01145-LMB-IDD)
June 22, 2009
June 30, 2009
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert J. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Albert J. Arrington seeks to appeal the district
court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition without prejudice as successive. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of
appealability. 369 F.3d 363,
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of
appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)
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 Arrington has not made the requisite showing. motions appeal. legal before for a certificate of Accordingly, we deny his and dismiss the
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional
contentions the court
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?