Piper Rountree v. Gene Johnson

Filing

Amending order/opinion filed [998696292] amending and superseding Unpublished per curiam Opinion [998694095-2]. Originating case number: 1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ Copies to all parties. Mailed to: Rountree. [11-6535]

Appeal: 11-6535

Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/07/2011

Page: 1 of 4

Filed:

October 7, 2011

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6535
(1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)

PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent – Appellee.

O R D E R

The Court amends its opinion filed October 5, 2011, as
follows:
On page 2, second line of text -- the word “his” is
corrected to read “her.”
For the Court – By Direction

/s/ Patricia S. Connor
Clerk

Appeal: 11-6535

Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/07/2011

Page: 2 of 4

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6535

PIPER ANN ROUNTREE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
GENE JOHNSON, of the Dept. of Correction of the Commonwealth
of Virginia,
Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.
Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:10-cv-00203-LO-TRJ)

Submitted:

September 29, 2011

Decided:

October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Piper Ann Rountree, Appellant Pro Se.
Susan Mozley Harris,
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-6535

Document: 17

Date Filed: 10/07/2011

Page: 3 of 4

PER CURIAM:
Piper
court’s

order

petition.

Ann

Rountree

denying

relief

seeks
on

to

appeal

the

28

U.S.C.

§ 2254

her

(2006)

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

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

district

absent

“a

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

See 28 U.S.C.

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).

of

a

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.

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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 Rountree 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

Appeal: 11-6535

before

Document: 17

the

court

Date Filed: 10/07/2011

and

argument

would

Page: 4 of 4

not

aid

the

decisional

process.
DISMISSED

3