Jones v. Johnson , 406 F. App'x 718 ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 10-7442
    QUENTIN JONES,
    Petitioner – Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, VDOC,
    Respondent – Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Richmond.   Robert E. Payne, Senior
    District Judge. (3:09-cv-00748-REP)
    Submitted:   December 16, 2010             Decided:   December 29, 2010
    Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Quentin Jones, Appellant Pro Se.       Craig Stallard,       Assistant
    Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Quentin     Jones       seeks   to    appeal     the    district       court’s
    order     dismissing       as    untimely         his    28    U.S.C.      § 2254     (2006)
    petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or    judge   issues      a    certificate        of    appealability.         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).                    When the
    district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies
    this    standard     by    demonstrating          that    reasonable       jurists     would
    find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional
    claims is debatable or wrong.                 Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    ,
    484    (2000);     see    Miller-El      v.   Cockrell,        
    537 U.S. 322
    ,     336-38
    (2003).       When the district court denies relief on procedural
    grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive
    procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a
    debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                              
    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85
    .             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
    2
    before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional
    process.
    DISMISSED
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-7442

Citation Numbers: 406 F. App'x 718

Judges: Gregory, Duncan, Davis

Filed Date: 12/29/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024