Jeffrey Hairston v. Jeffrey Dillman

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998264645-2] Originating case number: 7:09-cv-00125-jct-mfu. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998440046] [09-8167]

Jeffrey Hairston v. Jeffrey Dillman

Doc. 0

Case: 09-8167 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/06/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8167 JEFFREY HAIRSTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JEFFREY DILLMAN, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:09-cv-00125-jct-mfu) Submitted: September 15, 2010 Decided: October 6, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Hairston, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-8167 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/06/2010

Page: 2

PER CURIAM: Jeffrey Hairston seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

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. 484 (2000; see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Hairston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Case: 09-8167 Document: 13

Date Filed: 10/06/2010

Page: 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED

3