US v. Darwin Hutchin

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-3,5:12-cv-00054-FPS-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999341030]. Mailed to: Darwin Hutchins. [14-6125]

Appeal: 14-6125

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6125

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DARWIN DWAYNE HUTCHINS, a/k/a Dee,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge.
(5:09-cr-00021-FPS-JES-3; 5:12-cv00054-FPS-JES)

Submitted:

April 17, 2014

Decided:

April 22, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darwin Dwayne Hutchins, Appellant Pro Se.
John Castle Parr,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6125

Doc: 6

Filed: 04/22/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Darwin Dwayne Hutchins seeks to appeal the district
court’s

order

accepting

the

recommendation

of

the

magistrate

judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)
motion.
judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

appealability.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

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 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 Hutchins 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: 14-6125

Doc: 6

contentions

Filed: 04/22/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3