Terrance Smith v. George Hinkle
Filing
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00965-AJT-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998491973] [10-7148]
Terrance Smith v. George Hinkle
Doc. 0
Case: 10-7148 Document: 11
Date Filed: 12/28/2010
Page: 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7148 TERRANCE A. SMITH, Petitioner Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Respondent Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00965-AJT-TRJ) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Terrance A. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Appellee. Leah A. Darron, OFFICE OF Richmond, Virginia, for
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Dockets.Justia.com
Case: 10-7148 Document: 11
Date Filed: 12/28/2010
Page: 2
PER CURIAM: Terrance A. Smith seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not 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. and conclude that Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record Smith 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 contentions are adequately presented in the materials
2
Case: 10-7148 Document: 11
Date Filed: 12/28/2010
Page: 3
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?