Thomas Wayne Hansford v. AMANDA COBB, Superintendent of the Dan River Prison Work Farm

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6435
THOMAS WAYNE HANSFORD,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
AMANDA COBB, Superintendent of the Dan River Prison Work Farm,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:18-cv-00242-FDW)
Submitted: July 17, 2019 Decided: August 2, 2019
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Wayne Hansford, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Wayne Hansford seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28
U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012).
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) (2012). 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 (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 Hansford has not
made the requisite showing. 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 this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --