Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07256/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07256-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry Hines
Appellant
Butch Jackson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7256

JERRY HINES,

Petitioner – Appellant,

v.

BUTCH JACKSON, Superintendent,

Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00357-GCM)

Submitted: February 9, 2010 Decided: February 25, 2010

Before MOTZ, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry Hines, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant 

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7256 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM: 

Jerry Hines seeks to appeal the district court’s order 

denying relief on 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). 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, 484-85 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 

(4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and 

conclude that Hines 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: 09-7256 Doc: 13 Filed: 02/25/2010 Pg: 2 of 2