James Burrell v. David Zook
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:16-cv-00122-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: James Burrell. [16-7747]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JAMES DANIEL BURRELL,
Petitioner – Appellant,
DAVID ZOOK, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Henry E. Hudson, District
February 16, 2017
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and
HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
February 22, 2017
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
James Daniel Burrell, Appellant Pro Se. Lauren Catherine
Campbell, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
James Daniel Burrell seeks to appeal the district court’s
order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
A certificate of appealability will not
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
claims is debatable or wrong.
Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,
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.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Burrell has not made the requisite showing.
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
Pg: 3 of 3
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
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?