Scribd
Upload
40 views3 pages

Adams v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2011)

1) Dominique Herman Adams sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 motion as untimely. 2) The appeals court will not hear an appeal of such a dismissal unless it grants a Certificate of Appealability, which requires the appellant to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Adams did not make the required showing. It therefore denied the Certificate of Appealability and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
40 views3 pages

Adams v. Watson, 4th Cir. (2011)

1) Dominique Herman Adams sought to appeal the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 motion as untimely. 2) The appeals court will not hear an appeal of such a dismissal unless it grants a Certificate of Appealability, which requires the appellant to demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right. 3) The appeals court independently reviewed the record and determined that Adams did not make the required showing. It therefore denied the Certificate of Appealability and dismissed the appeal.

Uploaded by

Scribd Government Docs
Copyright
© Public Domain
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7511

DOMINIQUE HERMAN ADAMS,


Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Samuel G. Wilson, District
Judge. (7:10-cv-00383-sgw-mfu)

Submitted:

February 28, 2011

Decided:

March 9, 2011

Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dominique Herman Adams, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Dominique Herman Adams seeks to appeal the district
courts

order

dismissing

as

(West Supp. 2010) motion.

untimely

his

28

U.S.C.A.

2254

The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.


28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006).

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) (2006).

When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies


this

standard

by

demonstrating

that

reasonable

jurists

would

find that the district courts assessment of the constitutional


claims is debatable or wrong.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive


procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a
debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.
529 U.S. at 484-85.
and

conclude

that

Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record


Adams

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss


the appeal.
dispense

We deny Adams motion for bail pending appeal and

with

contentions

oral

are

argument

adequately

because
presented

the
in

facts
the

and

legal

materials

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

You might also like