Gaston v. Johnson , 139 F. App'x 591 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-6422
    JOHN F. GASTON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director     of   the   Virginia
    Department of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
    Judge. (CA-05-83-2)
    Submitted:   June 30, 2005                    Decided:   July 27, 2005
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    John F. Gaston, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    John F. Gaston seeks a certificate of appealability from
    the district court’s order denying relief on his petition for
    habeas corpus, filed pursuant to 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000).         An
    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus
    proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate
    of appealability. 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2000). A certificate of
    appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the
    denial of a constitutional right.”     
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(2) (2000).
    A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable
    jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and
    that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are
    also debatable or wrong.   See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 
    537 U.S. 322
    ,
    336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v.
    Lee, 
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).        We have independently
    reviewed the record and conclude that Gaston has not made the
    requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Gaston’s motion for 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 before the court and argument
    would not aid the decisional process.
    DISMISSED
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-6422

Citation Numbers: 139 F. App'x 591

Judges: Luttig, Motz, Per Curiam, Wilkinson

Filed Date: 7/27/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023