James Hundley v. Bryan Watson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:11-cv-00374-LMB-TCB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998838607]. Mailed to: James Hundley. [11-7543]

Appeal: 11-7543

Document: 14

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-7543
JAMES J. HUNDLEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:11-cv-00374-LMB-TCB)
Submitted:

April 19, 2012

Decided:

April 24, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James J. Hundley, Appellant Pro Se.
Benjamin Hyman Katz,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7543

Document: 14

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James J. Hundley seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders

dismissing

as

untimely

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

petition and denying reconsideration of that order.

(2006)

The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate
(2006).

of

appealability.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A)

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a 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
district

that

court’s

debatable

or

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

jurists

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

find

constitutional
529

U.S.

that

the

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. 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.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Hundley has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
We

dispense

with

oral

argument

2

because

the

facts

and

legal

Appeal: 11-7543

Document: 14

Date Filed: 04/24/2012

Page: 3 of 3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3