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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?