US v. Jeffrey Hopkins

Filing 920100305

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JEFFREY A. HOPKINS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00267-FDW-DCK-1; 3:04-cr-00268-FDW-CH1; 3:09-cv-00227-FDW) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey court's 2255 orders (West A. Hopkins as seeks to appeal filed his the 28 district U.S.C.A. for a dismissing Supp. 2009) untimely motion, denying his motion certificate of appealability, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying a certificate of appealability. justice or The orders are not appealable unless a circuit issues a certificate of appealability. 28 judge U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by U.S.C. standard 2253(c)(2) by any satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of find the that 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 Hopkins 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 2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?