Court Opinion

ID: 1015144
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:28:06.938533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:07.464788
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7603

JAMES DOUGLAS HALL, JR.,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

ALTON BASKERVILLE, Warden    of   Powhatan
Correctional Center,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.  Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-04-313-3)

Submitted:   December 16, 2004         Decided:     December 28, 2004

Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Douglas Hall, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jerry Walter Kilgore,
Attorney General, Leah Ann Darron, Assistant Attorney General,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

           James Douglas Hall, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).   The order is not appealable unless a circuit

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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

his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive

procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or

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

record and conclude that Hall 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

                                - 2 -