Jason Contreras v. Keith Davi

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:13-cv-00772-JCC-TRJ Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999546102]. [14-6045]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-6045 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6045 JASON MICHAEL CONTRERAS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. KEITH W. DAVIS, Warden, Sussex II State Prison, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:13-cv-00772-JCC-TRJ) Submitted: March 10, 2015 Decided: March 16, 2015 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jonathan P. Sheldon, SHELDON, FLOOD & HAYWOOD, PLC, Fairfax, Virginia, for Appellant. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-6045 Doc: 14 Filed: 03/16/2015 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: Jason Michael Contreras appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition raising a claim under Miller v. Alabama, 132 S. Ct. 2455 (2012). We previously granted a certificate of appealability on the issue of whether the district court erred in dismissing the petition as untimely, and we placed the appeal in abeyance pending a decision in Johnson v. Ponton, __ F.3d __, 2015 WL 924049 (4th Cir. Mar. 5, 2015). In Johnson, the Court held that the Miller rule is not retroactively applicable to cases on collateral Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. review. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 2

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?