James Hardison v. John Wolfe

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying for certificate of appealability Originating case number: 8:13-cv-01581-RWT Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999203347]. Mailed to: Hardison. [13-7118]

Appeal: 13-7118

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7118

JAMES FRANKLIN HARDISON,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN S. WOLFE;
MARYLAND,

THE

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

OF

THE

STATE

OF

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (8:13cv-01581-RWT)

Submitted:

September 24, 2013

Before NIEMEYER and
Senior Circuit Judge.

THACKER,

Decided:

Circuit

September 27, 2013

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Franklin Hardison, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 13-7118

Doc: 6

Filed: 09/27/2013

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
James Franklin Hardison seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

dismissing

(2006) petition.

as

successive

his

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).

See 28

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

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 Hardison 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: 13-7118

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 09/27/2013

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3