Barton v. Johnson ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-8107
    SHAWN C. BARTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C.,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (1:08-cv-01144-CMH-JFA)
    Submitted:   February 19, 2010             Decided:   March 3, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Shawn C. Barton, Appellant Pro Se.     Josephine Frances Whalen,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Shawn C. Barton seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006) petition.
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues     a    certificate           of    appealability.             See     
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).             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).          A
    prisoner       satisfies        this        standard        by     demonstrating          that
    reasonable       jurists       would       find     that    any     assessment       of     the
    constitutional         claims    by    the    district       court    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
    , 336-38 (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 Barton 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 the
    court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-8107

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Duncan

Filed Date: 3/3/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024