Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

Vester v. Johnson, 06-7669 (2007)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 06-7669 Visitors: 16
Filed: Jan. 05, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7669 JOHN BERNICE VESTER, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia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. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:05-cv-00711-RGD) Submitted: December 21, 2006 Decided: January 5, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by un
More
                             UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                           No. 06-7669



JOHN BERNICE VESTER,

                                              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.   Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:05-cv-00711-RGD)


Submitted:   December 21, 2006              Decided:   January 5, 2007


Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Bernice Vester, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

           John Bernice Vester seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.           The order

is not appealable 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     any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.        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 that Vester 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 before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.



                                                                  DISMISSED




                                 - 2 -

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer