Cross v. Johnson , 258 F. App'x 555 ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-7200
    EARL JACOB CROSS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (2:06-cv-00565-RAJ)
    Submitted:   December 13, 2007          Decided:     December 20, 2007
    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Earl Jacob Cross, Appellant Pro Se.      Robert H. Anderson, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Earl Jacob Cross seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.               The
    order is not appealable 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    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.        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 Cross has not
    made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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: 07-7200

Citation Numbers: 258 F. App'x 555

Judges: Niemeyer, Motz, Shedd

Filed Date: 12/20/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024