Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gray v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    Robert C. Gray appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Gray did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court found that Gray did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gray's appeal, granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-09-16 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7020

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Robert C. Gray appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Gray did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court found that Gray did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gray's appeal, granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    Copyright:

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

    Gray v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Robert C. Gray appealed the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition in federal district court. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed the case and determined that Gray did not make the requisite showing to warrant a certificate of appealability. Specifically, the court found that Gray did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable or wrong. As a result, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Gray's appeal, granted his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and denied his motion for appointment of counsel.

    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. 04-7020

    ROBERT C. GRAY,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the 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. (CA-03-640-2)

    Submitted:

    September 9, 2004

    Decided:

    September 16, 2004

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Robert C. Gray, 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.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Robert C. Gray appeals from the denial of his 28 U.S.C.
    2254 (2000) petition by the district court.

    An appeal may not be

    taken from the final order in a 2254 proceeding 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 jurists of reason would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003); Slack

    v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676,
    683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    We have reviewed the record and conclude that Gray has
    not made the requisite showing. Although we grant Grays motion to
    proceed in forma pauperis, we deny a certificate of appealability
    and

    dismiss

    the

    appeal.

    We

    further

    deny

    Grays

    motion

    for

    appointment of counsel. 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 in the
    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like