Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Dunn v. Boyette, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) William David Dunn, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court found was untimely. 2) An appeal from a habeas petition denial requires a certificate of appealability, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right and that reasonable jurists would debate the procedural ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Dunn did not make the requisite showing, because his § 2254 petition was indeed untimely. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-11-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7143

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) William David Dunn, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court found was untimely. 2) An appeal from a habeas petition denial requires a certificate of appealability, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right and that reasonable jurists would debate the procedural ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Dunn did not make the requisite showing, because his § 2254 petition was indeed untimely. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Dunn v. Boyette, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) William David Dunn, Jr. sought to appeal the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, which the district court found was untimely. 2) An appeal from a habeas petition denial requires a certificate of appealability, which requires the petitioner to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right and that reasonable jurists would debate the procedural ruling. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Dunn did not make the requisite showing, because his § 2254 petition was indeed untimely. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    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. 04-7143

    WILLIAM DAVID DUNN, JR.,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    BONNIE BOYETTE,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
    District Judge. (CA-03-565-5-BO)

    Submitted:

    October 18, 2004

    Decided:

    November 8, 2004

    Before MICHAEL and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior


    Circuit Judge.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    William David Dunn, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith,


    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    William David Dunn, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
    courts order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2000).

    An appeal may not be taken from the final

    order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or


    judge

    issues

    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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating both (1) that jurists of reason would


    find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the
    denial of a constitutional right and (2) that jurists of reason
    would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in
    its procedural ruling.

    Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.

    2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)); see
    Miller-El

    v.

    Cockrell,

    537

    U.S.

    322,

    336

    (2003).

    We

    have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dunn has not
    made the requisite showing because his 2254 petition was indeed
    untimely.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    and

    materials

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.
    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like