Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • White v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    1) Juan Delano White filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which was denied by the district court upon accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 2) White now seeks to appeal the district court's denial, but an appeal requires a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1). 3) After reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that White has not made the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to qualify for a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-08-30 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6448

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Juan Delano White filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which was denied by the district court upon accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 2) White now seeks to appeal the district court's denial, but an appeal requires a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1). 3) After reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that White has not made the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to qualify for a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismisses the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    White v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Juan Delano White filed a petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. 2254, which was denied by the district court upon accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 2) White now seeks to appeal the district court's denial, but an appeal requires a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1). 3) After reviewing the record, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals concludes that White has not made the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to qualify for a certificate of appealability. Therefore, the court dismisses the 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. 05-6448

    JUAN DELANO WHITE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director
    Department of Corrections,

    of

    the

    Virginia
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-04-8-2)

    Submitted:

    July 27, 2005

    Decided:

    August 30, 2005

    Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    David Bernard Hargett, HARGETT & WATSON, P.L.C., Richmond,


    Virginia, for Appellant. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, 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:
    Juan Delano White seeks to appeal the district courts
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).
    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
    issues a certificate of appealability.
    (2000).

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

    A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2000).

    28

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district


    courts assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 independently

    reviewed the record and conclude that White has not made the
    requisite

    showing.

    Accordingly,

    we

    appealability and dismiss the appeal.

    deny

    certificate

    of

    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