US v. Alexander J. Hardnett

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999044221-2].Originating case number: 3:03-cr-00212-JRS-2,3:08-cv-00028-JRS. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999101031]. Mailed to: Alexander Hardnett. [13-6093]

Appeal: 13-6093

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-6093

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ALEXANDER JAMES HARDNETT, a/k/a Alex,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
James R. Spencer, District
Judge. (3:03-cr-00212-JRS-2; 3:08-cv-00028-JRS)

Submitted:

April 12, 2013

Before WILKINSON and
Senior Circuit Judge.

DUNCAN,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

and

May 3, 2013

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alexander James Hardnett, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-6093

Doc: 10

Filed: 05/03/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Alexander James Hardnett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West
Supp.

2012)

motion.

The

order

is

not

appealable

unless

a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28

U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(B)

(2006).

A

certificate

of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of
the denial of a constitutional right.”
(2006).

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

prisoner

satisfies

this

jurists

would

reasonable

standard
find

by

that

demonstrating

the

district

that

court’s

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
denies

relief

demonstrate

on

both

procedural

that

the

When the district court

grounds,

dispositive

the

prisoner

procedural

must

ruling

is

debatable, and that the motion 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 Hardnett 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: 13-6093

Doc: 10

contentions

are

Filed: 05/03/2013

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3