The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
09-7380•Santos Flores v. GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections
09-7380Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitDec 18, 2009
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-7380
SANTOS FLORES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00350-LMB-TRJ)
Submitted: December 15, 2009 Decided: December 18, 2009
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Santos Flores, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
2
PER CURIAM:
Santos Flores seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability. See 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). 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. See 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 Flores
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 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.