Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06159/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06159-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6159

MICHAEL EDWARDS HANKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

CAROLE F. WALLACE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00485-jlk-mfu)

Submitted: September 8, 2008 Decided: September 18, 2008

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Edwards Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Virginia Bidwell

Theisen, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6159 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/18/2008 Pg: 1 of 3
*

Although it appears from the pleadings Hankins has filed that

his middle name is “Edward,” the district court’s docket and

memorandum opinion spell Hankins’ middle name as “Edwards.” For

consistency, we have retained that latter spelling on our docket

and in this opinion.

2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Edwards Hankins* seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue

absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v.

Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S.

473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hankins

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

Appeal: 08-6159 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/18/2008 Pg: 2 of 3
3

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the

decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 08-6159 Doc: 10 Filed: 09/18/2008 Pg: 3 of 3