Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Hunt v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    1) David L. Hunt, a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and determined that Hunt did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Hunt's appeal, finding that he did not show the district court's procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7301

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) David L. Hunt, a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and determined that Hunt did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Hunt's appeal, finding that he did not show the district court's procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Hunt v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) David L. Hunt, a state prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 2) The Fourth Circuit reviewed the record and determined that Hunt did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied, which is required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). 3) As such, the Fourth Circuit denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed Hunt's appeal, finding that he did not show the district court's procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7301

    DAVID L. HUNT,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-04-470)

    Submitted:

    November 18, 2004

    Decided:

    November 30, 2004

    Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David L. Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    David L. Hunt, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000) as untimely.

    The order is not appealable unless a

    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).
    not

    issue

    absent

    constitutional right.

    A certificate of appealability will

    substantial

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    of

    A prisoner

    satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists


    would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that
    any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also
    debatable or wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336

    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).

    We have independently reviewed

    the record and conclude that Hunt has not shown the district
    courts procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong.

    Accordingly,

    we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    We

    dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions
    are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
    argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like