Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Headen v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    1) Ronnie Clarence Headen, a Virginia prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) An appeal from a §2254 proceeding requires a certificate of appealability, which will not issue unless reasonable jurists would find the denial of a constitutional right debatable. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Headen did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2003-06-04 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-6292

    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) Ronnie Clarence Headen, a Virginia prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) An appeal from a §2254 proceeding requires a certificate of appealability, which will not issue unless reasonable jurists would find the denial of a constitutional right debatable. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Headen did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

    Copyright:

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

    Headen v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2003)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1) Ronnie Clarence Headen, a Virginia prisoner, appealed the district court's denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. 2) An appeal from a §2254 proceeding requires a certificate of appealability, which will not issue unless reasonable jurists would find the denial of a constitutional right debatable. 3) The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Headen did not make the requisite showing for a certificate of appealability. The appeal was therefore 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    UNPUBLISHED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. 03-6292

    RONNIE CLARENCE HEADEN,


    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. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-02-475)

    Submitted:

    May 29, 2003

    Decided:

    June 4, 2003

    Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Ronnie Clarence Headen, Appellant Pro Se.


    Richard Bain Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Ronnie Clarence Headen, a Virginia prisoner, 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).

    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.
    (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).
    demonstrating
    constitutional

    that

    A prisoner satisfies this standard by

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    28

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    would
    that

    find
    any

    that

    his

    dispositive

    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or


    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 123 S. Ct. 1029, 1040 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941 (2001).

    We have

    independently reviewed the record and conclude that Headen has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny 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

    You might also like