Richie Conner v. A. Hart

Filing 920100528

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6266 RICHIE HANSFORD CONNOR, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. A. GENE HART, Defendant Appellee.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 No. 10-6266 affirmed; No. 10-6229 dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: In Case No. 10-6266, Richie Hansford Conner appeals the district court's (2006) orders his dismissing action, under which 28 the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

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?