Jimmy Rios v. Boyd Bennett
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JIMMY D. RIOS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BOYD BENNETT; RICK JACKSON, Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00094-GCM)
June 17, 2010
June 23, 2010
Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jimmy D. Rios, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jimmy D. Rios seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and his motion for reconsideration. unless a circuit justice See 28 or judge The order is not appealable issues a certificate (2006). absent of A "a
appealability. certificate of
§ 2253(c)(1) not issue
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). relief on the merits, that a When the district court denies satisfies would this standard that claims 473, by the is 484
demonstrating district debatable
reasonable of v.
constitutional 529 U.S.
(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. at 484-85. that We have Rios independently has not made reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. the record and
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
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?