Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

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

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    10 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Donnell D. Johnson, who sought relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, as he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Johnson had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2006-04-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-7422

    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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Donnell D. Johnson, who sought relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, as he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Johnson had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

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

    Johnson 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    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissing an appeal from Donnell D. Johnson, who sought relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. The court denied Johnson a certificate of appealability, as he did not make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find his constitutional claims debatable or that any procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded Johnson had not demonstrated the denial of a constitutional right. Therefore, the court dismissed 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. 05-7422

    DONNELL D. JOHNSON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-04-382-1-JCC)

    Submitted:

    April 12, 2006

    Decided:

    April 25, 2006

    Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Donnell D. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Christopher Galanides,


    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:
    Donnell D. Johnson seeks to appeal the district courts
    order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254
    (2000).

    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).

    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

    this

    would

    and

    that

    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).
    record

    and

    showing.

    conclude

    and

    materials

    Johnson

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal.


    facts

    that

    We have independently reviewed the

    legal
    before

    We dispense with oral argument because the

    contentions
    the

    court

    are

    adequately

    and

    argument

    presented

    would

    not

    in

    the

    aid

    the

    decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    - 2 -

    You might also like