Headen v. Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
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. (2:06-cv-00560-RBS)
March 22, 2007
March 30, 2007
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ronnie Clarence Headen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Ronnie Clarence Hayden seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this
standard by demonstrating that reasonable 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 Headen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of We also deny Headen's We
appealability and dismiss the appeal.
motions for appointment of counsel and for a court order.
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 -
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?