Filed: Nov. 17, 2009
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6409 JERRY GLENN KILLEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00025-jct-mfu) Submitted: November 2, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opi
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6409 JERRY GLENN KILLEN, Petitioner - Appellant, v. BRYAN WATSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:08-cv-00025-jct-mfu) Submitted: November 2, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009 Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opin..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6409
JERRY GLENN KILLEN,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
BRYAN WATSON, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:08-cv-00025-jct-mfu)
Submitted: November 2, 2009 Decided: November 17, 2009
Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jerry Glenn Killen, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Glenn Killen seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)
petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. See 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 Killen
has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the
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