Hankins v. Wood, No. 07-7574 (4th Cir. 2008)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7574 FREEMAN L. HANKINS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. DON WOOD, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:07-hc-02046-H) Submitted: July 22, 2008 Decided: July 24, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Freeman L. Hankins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Freeman L. Hankins seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. unless a circuit appealability. justice or The order is not appealable judge issues a certificate See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2000). 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) 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 Hankins has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hankins motion for authorization, 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 -

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.