Jason Clem v. Gene Johnson
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
JASON RICHARD-CHARLES CLEM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00015-sgw-mfu)
February 25, 2010
April 7, 2010
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jason Richard-Charles Clem, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Jason Richard-Charles Clem seeks to appeal the
district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit See 28
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will showing of the denial (2006). of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Clem has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a We further We dispense
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Clem's motion for the appointment of counsel.
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?