Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Lee v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    0 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Earl Westley Lee. The district court had dismissed Lee's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appellate court denies Lee's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. It also denies Lee's motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for a copy of his transcript at government expense. The appeal is dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-02-01 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7291

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Earl Westley Lee. The district court had dismissed Lee's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appellate court denies Lee's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. It also denies Lee's motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for a copy of his transcript at government expense. The appeal is dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    0 views2 pages

    Lee v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit regarding a habeas corpus petition filed by Earl Westley Lee. The district court had dismissed Lee's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition as untimely. The appellate court denies Lee's request for a certificate of appealability, finding he did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong. It also denies Lee's motion for appointment of counsel and his motion for a copy of his transcript at government expense. The appeal is dismissed.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 05-7291

    EARL WESTLEY LEE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
    Claude M. Hilton, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-05-557-1-CMH)

    Submitted: January 26, 2006

    Decided:

    February 1, 2006

    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Earl Westley Lee, 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:
    Earl Westley Lee seeks to appeal the district court's
    order 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) (2000).
    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial
    showing of the denial of a constitutional right."

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    any

    assessment of his 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 Lee has
    not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Lees motion

    for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability,


    and dismiss the appeal.

    We also deny his motion for a copy of his

    transcript at government expense.

    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 -

    You might also like