Harvey Hudson v. US, No. 13-6106 (4th Cir. 2013)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-6106 HARVEY J. HUDSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02161-D) Submitted: September 24, 2013 Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge. THACKER, Decided: Circuit September 26, 2013 Judges, and HAMILTON, Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Harvey J. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Harvey J. Hudson, a District of Columbia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2241, 2254 (West 2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Madley v. U.S. Parole Comm n, 278 F.3d 1306, 1309 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ( We conclude that a court of the District [of Columbia] [§ 2253(c)]. ). is a state court for the purpose of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 debatable or assessment wrong. Slack of the constitutional v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. claims is 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hudson has not made the requisite showing. 2 Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. grant Hudson in forma pauperis status. We We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this 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.
