United States v. Leonard Hudson , 522 F. App'x 184 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 13-6092
    UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
    Plaintiff - Appellee,
    v.
    LEONARD ANDRE   HUDSON,     a/k/a   Steven   Orlando   Hudson,   a/k/a
    Dantee Keys,
    Defendant - Appellant.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Abingdon.    James P. Jones, District
    Judge. (1:07-cr-00016-JPJ-RSB-1; 1:12-cv-80404-JPJ-RSB)
    Submitted:   May 30, 2013                        Decided:    June 4, 2013
    Before SHEDD, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leonard Andre Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst,
    Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leonard    Andre    Hudson          seeks    to    appeal    the     district
    court’s    order    dismissing         as    untimely       his    28    U.S.C.A.    §    2255
    (West Supp. 2013) motion.              The order is not appealable unless a
    circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    28     U.S.C.      § 2253(c)(1)(B)            (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 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing.                           Accordingly, we
    deny    Hudson’s    motion       for    a    certificate          of    appealability      and
    dismiss the appeal.           We dispense with oral argument because the
    facts    and    legal     contentions        are     adequately         presented    in    the
    2
    materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the
    decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 13-6092

Citation Numbers: 522 F. App'x 184

Filed Date: 6/4/2013

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/30/2014