From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neill v. Dir., Virginia Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 20, 2012
470 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2012)

Opinion

No. 12-6009

03-20-2012

JOHN DANIEL O'NEILL, a/k/a John Daniel O'Neil, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

John Daniel O'Neill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


UNPUBLISHED

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Chief District Judge. (3:10-cv-00157-JRS)

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Daniel O'Neill, Appellant Pro Se. Erin M. Kulpa, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

John Daniel O'Neill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and its subsequent order denying his motions for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 court's 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). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural 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 O'Neill 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


Summaries of

O'Neill v. Dir., Virginia Dep't of Corr.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Mar 20, 2012
470 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2012)
Case details for

O'Neill v. Dir., Virginia Dep't of Corr.

Case Details

Full title:JOHN DANIEL O'NEILL, a/k/a John Daniel O'Neil, Petitioner - Appellant, v…

Court:UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

Date published: Mar 20, 2012

Citations

470 F. App'x 200 (4th Cir. 2012)

Citing Cases

Richmond v. White

O'Neill v. Dir., Va. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:10cv157, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88096, at *19 (E.D. Va. Aug. 9,…

Day v. White

9, 2011), appeal dismissed, 470 Fed.Appx. 200 (4th Cir.…