Court Opinion

ID: 1011497
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:28:43.8086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:13:47.320142
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 03-6911

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

SAMUEL L. HUCKS, JR., a/k/a Junie Boy,

                                              Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CR-98-47)

Submitted:   August 28, 2003            Decided:   September 10, 2003

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Fernando Groene, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Samuel L. Hucks, Jr., seeks to appeal from the district

court’s   order    denying   his    request    for    equitable      tolling    and

dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.                      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,                   , 123 S. Ct.

1029, 1039 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000);

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S.

941 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Hucks 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