Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 1 views

    Hinton v. MD Department Safety, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Jerome Hinton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinton failed to make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content

    You might also like

    Hinton v. MD Department Safety, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Jerome Hinton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinton failed to make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-09-13 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-6514

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Jerome Hinton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinton failed to make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    1 views2 pages

    Hinton v. MD Department Safety, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Howard Jerome Hinton's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court issued a per curiam opinion stating that a certificate of appealability is required to appeal a district court's denial of habeas relief, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of constitutional claims debatable or wrong or that its procedural rulings were debatable. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Hinton failed to make the requisite showing, so it denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 06-6514

    HOWARD JEROME HINTON,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    MARYLAND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY AND
    CORRECTIONAL SERVICES; THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:06-cv00455-AMD)

    Submitted:

    August 21, 2006

    Decided:

    September 13, 2006

    Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Howard Jerome Hinton, Appellant Pro Se.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Howard Jerome Hinton seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000) petition.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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 Hinton 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 -

    You might also like