Webster v. Johnson ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 07-6433
    RODNEY LAMONT WEBSTER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
    Judge. (1:06-cv-01235-LMB)
    Submitted:   July 18, 2007                 Decided:   August 3, 2007
    Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Rodney Lamont Webster, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Rodney     Lamont   Webster     seeks   to    appeal   the    district
    court’s order dismissing his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition as
    untimely.    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 Webster 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: 07-6433

Judges: Traxler, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 8/3/2007

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024