US v. Jeffrey Hopkins, No. 09-8235 (4th Cir. 2010)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8235 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff Appellee, v. JEFFREY A. HOPKINS, Defendant Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, District Judge. (3:04-cr-00267-FDW-DCK-1; 3:04-cr-00268-FDW-CH1; 3:09-cv-00227-FDW) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: March 5, 2010 Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jeffrey A. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jeffrey court s § 2255 orders (West A. Hopkins dismissing Supp. as 2009) seeks to untimely motion, appeal filed denying the district 28 U.S.C.A. motion for his his a certificate of appealability, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration appealability. justice or of the judge issue absent constitutional prisoner issues a a certificate right. jurists constitutional a certificate of 28 this would claims by of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial satisfies reasonable denying The orders are not appealable unless a circuit U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not order showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Hopkins has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because 2 the the we deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately 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.
