Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 4 views

    Hairston v. Mathene, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Argentine Hairston's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Hairston failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability to issue. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    You might also like

    Hairston v. Mathene, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    4 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Argentine Hairston's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Hairston failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability to issue. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2010-06-18 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 09-8081

    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 Argentine Hairston's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Hairston failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability to issue. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    4 views3 pages

    Hairston v. Mathene, 4th Cir. (2010)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Argentine Hairston's appeal of the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for habeas corpus relief. The court concluded that Hairston failed to make a substantial showing that he was denied a constitutional right, as required for a certificate of appealability to issue. Specifically, the court independently reviewed the record and determined that Hairston did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 09-8081

    ARGENTINE R. HAIRSTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    RC MATHENE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
    District Judge. (7:09-cv-00152-jlk-mfu)

    Submitted:

    June 3, 2010

    Before MOTZ and


    Circuit Judge.

    KING,

    Decided:

    Circuit

    Judges,

    and

    June 18, 2010

    HAMILTON,

    Senior

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Argentine R. Hairston, Appellant Pro Se.


    Thomas Drummond
    Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Argentine
    courts

    order

    petition.
    or

    R.

    denying

    relief

    seeks

    on

    his

    to
    28

    appeal
    U.S.C.

    the

    district

    2254

    (2006)

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

    judge

    issues

    certificate

    2253(c)(1) (2006).
    issue

    Hairston

    absent

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    A certificate of appealability will not

    substantial

    constitutional right.

    showing

    of

    the

    denial

    of

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

    When the district court denies relief on the merits, a


    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    jurists

    would

    reasonable

    standard
    find

    by

    that

    demonstrating

    the

    district

    that

    courts

    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).
    denies

    relief

    demonstrate

    on

    both

    procedural

    that

    the

    When the district court

    grounds,

    dispositive

    the

    prisoner

    procedural

    must

    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 Hairston 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

    You might also like