Thomas Chilton, III v. Loretta Kelly

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998806832-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [998806825-2] Originating case number: 3:10-cv-00871-JRS Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998863800]. Mailed to: Chilton. [12-6020]

Appeal: 12-6020

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/30/2012

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-6020

THOMAS A. CHILTON, III,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
LORETTA KELLY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:10-cv-00871-JRS)

Submitted:

May 24, 2012

Before MOTZ and
Circuit Judge.

DAVIS,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 30, 2012

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas A. Chilton, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Donald Eldridge
Jeffrey, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 12-6020

Doc: 19

Filed: 05/30/2012

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Thomas A. Chilton, III, seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Chilton has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly,

we deny Chilton’s motions for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal.
facts

and

legal

We dispense with oral argument because the

contentions

are

adequately

presented

in

the

Appeal: 12-6020

Doc: 19

materials

before

Filed: 05/30/2012

the

court

Pg: 3 of 3

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional process.
DISMISSED

3