Michael Yates v. Keith Davis, No. 09-7474 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this CaseThis opinion or order relates to an opinion or order originally issued on November 23, 2009.
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7474 MICHAEL A. YATES, Petitioner Appellant, v. KEITH DAVIS, Warden, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T. S. Ellis III, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01284-TSE-IDD) Submitted: November 5, 2010 Before WILKINSON and Senior Circuit Judge. GREGORY, Decided: Circuit November 15, 2010 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael A. Yates, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Michael A. Yates seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing petition. or judge as his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue untimely absent a appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. of showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a 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 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude Accordingly, that we Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Yates deny has Yates not made motion appealability and dismiss the appeal. the requisite for a showing. certificate of We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
