Yates v. Davis , 401 F. App'x 825 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7474
    MICHAEL A. YATES,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    KEITH DAVIS, Warden,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T. S. Ellis III, Senior
    District Judge. (1:08-cv-01284-TSE-IDD)
    Submitted:   November 5, 2010              Decided:   November 15, 2010
    Before WILKINSON and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
    Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael A. Yates, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael A. Yates seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order     dismissing       as    untimely       his    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
         (2006)
    petition.      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 demonstrate both that the dispositive
    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition 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       Yates   has   not      made   the    requisite       showing.
    Accordingly,       we     deny     Yates’    motion         for    a     certificate      of
    appealability and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with oral
    argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
    2
    presented in the materials before the court and argument would
    not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7474A

Citation Numbers: 401 F. App'x 825

Judges: Gregory, Hamilton, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 11/15/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/3/2023