Johnson v. Rushton , 289 F. App'x 657 ( 2008 )


Menu:
  •                                  UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 08-6659
    LEONARD BROWN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:07-cv-00445-GBL-TRJ)
    Submitted:     August 14, 2008                 Decided:   August 20, 2008
    Before MICHAEL, Circuit Judge, and WILKINS and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leonard Brown, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE
    ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leonard Brown seeks to appeal the district court’s order
    denying relief on his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) 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) (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     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 that Brown
    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: 08-6659

Citation Numbers: 289 F. App'x 657

Judges: Michael, Wilkins, Hamilton

Filed Date: 8/20/2008

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024