Edmonds v. Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LUTHER C. EDMONDS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (3:05-cv-00529-REP)
Submitted: September 28, 2006
Decided: October 4, 2006
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Stephen R. McCullough, Luther C. Edmonds, Appellant Pro Se. Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM: Luther C. Edmonds seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 28
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). demonstrating that
A prisoner satisfies this standard by jurists would find that any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Edmonds has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We dispense with oral
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?