Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Ferguson v. Edwards, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    3 views2 pages
    Lenton Ferguson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ferguson's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ferguson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ferguson's appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-12-14 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 06-7478

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Lenton Ferguson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ferguson's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ferguson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ferguson's appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Ferguson v. Edwards, 4th Cir. (2006)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Lenton Ferguson appealed the district court's dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition for failure to exhaust state court remedies. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals denied Ferguson's request for a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Ferguson did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that the district court's procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. Therefore, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Ferguson's appeal.

    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. 06-7478

    LENTON A. FERGUSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    LISA EDWARDS,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (1:05-cv-01125-GBL)

    Submitted:

    December 6, 2006

    Decided:

    December 14, 2006

    Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lenton A. Ferguson, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Thomas Judge, OFFICE


    OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Lenton A. Ferguson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)
    petition for failure to exhaust his state court remedies.

    The

    order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a


    certificate of appealability.

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating
    constitutional

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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 independently reviewed the

    record and conclude that Ferguson has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Fergusons 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 -

    You might also like