Bernard Richardson v. Gene Johnson

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 1:09-cv-00218-JCC-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998812566]. Mailed to: Bernard Ray Richardson. [11-7362]

Appeal: 11-7362

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7362

BERNARD RAY RICHARDSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
GENE M. JOHNSON,
Corrections,

Director

of

Virginia

Department

of

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cv-00218-JCC-IDD)

Submitted:

March 15, 2012

Decided:

March 19, 2012

Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bernard Ray Richardson, Appellant Pro Se.
Richard Carson
Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 11-7362

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Bernard Ray Richardson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).
issue

absent

“a

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

of

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.

Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that

Richardson

has

not

made

the

requisite

showing.

Accordingly, we deny Richardson’s motion for a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal.

We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

2

Appeal: 11-7362

Document: 12

Date Filed: 03/19/2012

Page: 3 of 3

presented in the materials before the court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

3