Richie Conner v. A. Hart

Filing 920100528

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6266

RICHIE HANSFORD CONNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. GENE HART, Defendant ­ Appellee.

No. 10-6229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. RICHIE HANSFORD CONNOR, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:10-cv-00017-SGW-MFU;5:07-cr-00066-SGW-MFU-1)

Submitted:

May 20, 2010

Decided:

May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

No. 10-6266 affirmed; No. 10-6229 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richie Hansford Connor, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

PER CURIAM: In Case No. 10-6266, Richie Hansford Conner appeals the district court's (2006) orders his dismissing action, under which 28 the U.S.C. court

§ 1915(e)(2)(B)

civil

considered pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his motion for reconsideration. find no reversible error. We have reviewed the record and Accordingly, we affirm for the

reasons stated by the district court.

Conner v. Hart, No. 7:10-

cv-00017-SGW-MFU (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2010 & Feb. 3, 2010). In Case No. 10-6229, Conner seeks to appeal the

district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of

judge

appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006).

A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). prisoner reasonable 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that

court's

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief on procedural 3 When the district court the prisoner must

grounds,

demonstrate

both

that

the

dispositive

procedural

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and conclude that

Conner has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions the court are and adequately argument presented not in aid the the materials decisional

would

process. No. 10-6266 AFFIRMED No. 10-6229 DISMISSED

4