Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07574/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07574-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Freeman L. Hankins
Appellant
Don Wood
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7574

FREEMAN L. HANKINS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

DON WOOD,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior

District Judge. (5:07-hc-02046-H)

Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7574 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of 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 Hankins’ motion for authorization, 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: 07-7574 Doc: 30 Filed: 07/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2