Joseph Nobrega v. George Hinkle, No. 09-6665 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6665 JOSEPH NOBREGA, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GEORGE M. HINKLE, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O Grady, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00381-LO-JFA) Submitted: July 15, 2009 Decided: August 6, 2009 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Joseph Nobrega, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Joseph Nobrega seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a of standard substantial by See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not constitutional right. this appealability. showing of Id. § 2253(c)(2). demonstrating that the denial of a A prisoner satisfies 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 record and showing. Cir. 2001). conclude We that have Nobrega independently has not made reviewed the the requisite 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

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.