Andre Hopkins v. S. Young

Filing 920100628

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6358 ANDRE FIDEL HOPKINS, Petitioner Appellant, v. S. K. YOUNG, Warden; COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA; GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00901-AJT-JFA) Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Andre Fidel Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Andre Fidel Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit See 28 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will 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 Hopkins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. all district with We further deny Hopkins' motions for leave to file court oral documents argument and to order the the record. and We legal dispense 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?