United States v. Johnson , 155 F. App'x 654 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6617
    RODNEY BERNARD JONES,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-04-510-2)
    Submitted:   November 22, 2005            Decided:   December 2, 2005
    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rodney Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney B. Jones, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
    district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under
    
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final
    order in a habeas corpus 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.”    
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).        A prisoner satisfies this
    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that
    the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
    debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the
    district court are also debatable or wrong.              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 Jones
    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: 05-6617

Citation Numbers: 155 F. App'x 654

Judges: Wilkinson, Luttig, Williams

Filed Date: 12/2/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024