Shawn Barton v. Gene Johnson

Filing 920100303

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-8107 SHAWN C. BARTON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of D.O.C., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:08-cv-01144-CMH-JFA) Submitted: February 19, 2010 Decided: March 3, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Shawn C. Barton, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Shawn C. Barton 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 justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or substantial 28 constitutional prisoner reasonable right." this would by 2253(c)(2) by any (2006). satisfies jurists demonstrating assessment is of constitutional claims district court debatable 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 Barton has not made the of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal certificate dispense appealability oral argument appeal. and with because facts 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?