Court Opinion

ID: 1014889
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:24:13.708585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:30.713505
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-7301

DAVID L. HUNT,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-470)

Submitted:   November 18, 2004         Decided:     November 30, 2004

Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

David L. Hunt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              David L. Hunt, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the

district court’s order denying his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) as untimely.        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

(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 Hunt has not shown the district

court’s procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong.              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 -