Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07342/USCOURTS-ca4-19-07342-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Carlos Hernandez
Appellee
Erik A. Hooks
Appellee
Richard Todd York
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7342

RICHARD TODD YORK,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

ERIK A. HOOKS, Secretary of Public Safety; CARLOS HERNANDEZ, 

Superintendent, Avery-Mitchell Correctional Institution,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00568-FDW)

Submitted: January 21, 2020 Decided: January 24, 2020

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Richard Todd York, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7342 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Todd York, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

denying relief without prejudice on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2018) petition and denying his 

motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 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) (2018). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that York 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 19-7342 Doc: 5 Filed: 01/24/2020 Pg: 2 of 2