Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06640/USCOURTS-ca4-09-06640-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 09-6640

RICHARD AARON BLANKENSHIP, JR.,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

R. DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent, Mountain View 

Correctional Institution,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (5:09-cv-00027-GCM)

Submitted: April 1, 2010 Decided: April 13, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-6640 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/13/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Aaron Blankenship, Jr., seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 (2006) 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) (2006). 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) 

(2006). 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 

Blankenship has not made the requisite showing. 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

Appeal: 09-6640 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/13/2010 Pg: 2 of 2