Johnie Norman, Jr. v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to schedule oral argument [998212579-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [998212578-2]; denying Motion for other relief [998212576-2] Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00131-LO-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998464314] [09-7880]

Johnie Norman, Jr. v. Gene Johnson

Doc. 0

Case: 09-7880 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 1

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7880 JOHNIE NORMAN, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Respondent ­ Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O'Grady, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00131-LO-IDD) Submitted: October 12, 2010 Decided: November 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Johnie Norman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Senior Assistant Attorney General, Appellee. Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Richmond, Virginia, for

Dockets.Justia.com

Case: 09-7880 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

2

Case: 09-7880 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 3

PER CURIAM: Johnie court's order Norman, Jr. seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. the district (2006)

denying

relief

§ 2254

petition.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice See 28 U.S.C.

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a

A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a

substantial

constitutional right."

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the

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

find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38

(2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack,

We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Norman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Norman's motions to appoint counsel, We

to schedule oral argument, and to conduct en banc argument. dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal

3

Case: 09-7880 Document: 20

Date Filed: 11/12/2010

Page: 4

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

DISMISSED

4