Henry Perry-Bey v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920100624

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7797

HENRY PERRY-BEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-00963-JCC-TRJ)

Submitted:

June 17, 2010

Decided:

June 24, 2010

Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge.

KING,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Senior

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Perry-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Henry Perry-Bey seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his pleading construed as a motion for

reconsideration of the order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a

circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." (2006). prisoner reasonable 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2)

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a satisfies jurists this would standard find that by the demonstrating district that

court's

assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). denies relief both on procedural the When the district court the prisoner ruling must is

grounds,

demonstrate

that

dispositive

procedural

debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. We have independently reviewed the Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. record and conclude that

Perry-Bey has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we We

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal

2

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3