Filed: Mar. 02, 2006
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7497 ANTONIO HODGES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-734) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublish
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7497 ANTONIO HODGES, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District Judge. (CA-05-734) Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublishe..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7497
ANTONIO HODGES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, District
Judge. (CA-05-734)
Submitted: February 23, 2006 Decided: March 2, 2006
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Antonio Hodges, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Hodges seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a
certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district
court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or
wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district
court are likewise debatable. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hodges 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 -