Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Fentress v. Robinson, 07-6151 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 07-6151 Visitors: 44
Filed: Jun. 21, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6151 SHARNELL FENTRESS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus D. ROBINSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:06-cv-01228-CMH) Submitted: May 21, 2007 Decided: June 21, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Sharnell Fentress, Appellant
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 07-6151



SHARNELL FENTRESS,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus


D. ROBINSON, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:06-cv-01228-CMH)


Submitted:   May 21, 2007                  Decided:   June 21, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Sharnell Fentress, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

          Sharnell Fentress 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)(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   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.     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 Fentress 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 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer