Filed: Dec. 19, 2007
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7109 JERRY E. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00089-JCT) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7109 JERRY E. DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00089-JCT) Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curia..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-7109
JERRY E. DAVIS,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of
Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District
Judge. (7:07-cv-00089-JCT)
Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely 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 Davis has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -