Jeffrey Hanks v. Ed Wright, No. 08-6695 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6695 JEFFREY DEAN HANKS, Petitioner Appellant, v. ED WRIGHT, Respondent Appellee, and NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL; JEFF FRAZIER, Warden, Respondents. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:07-cv-00020-HEH) Submitted: February 17, 2009 Decided: March 12, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey Dean Hanks, Appellant Pro Se. Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Richmond, Virginia, for Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey court s order petition. Dean denying Hanks relief seeks on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue district a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the 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 Hanks has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We 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.