Andre Hopkins v. S. Young

Filing 920100628

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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