US v. Hardy, No. 05-7420 (4th Cir. 2006)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7420 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD HARDY, Defendant - Appellant. No. 05-7584 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus HOWARD HARDY, Defendant - Appellant. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (CR-95-156; CA-05-880; CA-05-1103) Submitted: January 13, 2006 Decided: February 7, 2006 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard Hardy, Appellant Pro Se. Irvin McCreary Allen, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). - 2 - PER CURIAM: In No. 05-7420, Howard Hardy seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. In No. 05-7584, he seeks to appeal the court s order dismissing a later-filed § 2255 motion on the ground that it was a second or successive § 2255 motion requiring a certificate of appealability from this court, which Hardy did not obtain. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this 28 U.S.C. standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of his constitutional claims 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hardy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss Hardy s appeals. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately - 3 - presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED - 4 -
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.
