Quentin Jones v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cv-00748-REP. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998493060] [10-7442]

Download PDF
Quentin Jones v. Gene Johnson Doc. 0 Case: 10-7442 Document: 7 Date Filed: 12/29/2010 Page: 1 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7442 QUENTIN JONES, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, VDOC, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00748-REP) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 29, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Quentin Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Assistant Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 10-7442 Document: 7 Date Filed: 12/29/2010 Page: 2 PER CURIAM: Quentin order dismissing Jones as seeks to appeal 28 the district 2254 court's (2006) untimely his U.S.C. petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 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. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 2 Case: 10-7442 Document: 7 Date Filed: 12/29/2010 Page: 3 before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

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?