Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06266/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06266-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Richie Hansford Conner
Appellant
A. Gene Hart
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6266

RICHIE HANSFORD CONNOR,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

A. GENE HART,

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 10-6229

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHIE HANSFORD CONNOR,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:10-cv-00017-SGW-MFU;5:07-cr-00066-SGW-MFU-1)

Submitted: May 20, 2010 Decided: May 28, 2010

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Appeal: 10-6266 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 4
2

No. 10-6266 affirmed; No. 10-6229 dismissed by unpublished per 

curiam opinion.

Richie Hansford Connor, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6266 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 4
3

PER CURIAM:

In Case No. 10-6266, Richie Hansford Conner appeals 

the district court’s orders dismissing under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1915(e)(2)(B) (2006) his civil action, which the court 

considered pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of 

Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying his 

motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. Conner v. Hart, No. 7:10-

cv-00017-SGW-MFU (W.D. Va. Jan. 14, 2010 & Feb. 3, 2010).

In Case No. 10-6229, Conner seeks to appeal the 

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

§ 2255 (West Supp. 2009) motion. The order is not appealable 

unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. 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). 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 

Appeal: 10-6266 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 4
4

demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable, and that the motion 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 

Conner 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.

No. 10-6266 AFFIRMED

No. 10-6229 DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6266 Doc: 11 Filed: 05/28/2010 Pg: 4 of 4