Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Flowers v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views2 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reginald Flowers' appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court determined that Flowers did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to be issued a certificate of appealability, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Reasonable jurists would not find Flowers' constitutional claims debatable or the district court's procedural rulings wrong or debatable. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-03-05 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 03-7571

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reginald Flowers' appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court determined that Flowers did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to be issued a certificate of appealability, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Reasonable jurists would not find Flowers' constitutional claims debatable or the district court's procedural rulings wrong or debatable. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    2 views2 pages

    Flowers v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Reginald Flowers' appeal of the district court's denial of his petition for a writ of habeas corpus. The court determined that Flowers did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right to be issued a certificate of appealability, as required under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c). Reasonable jurists would not find Flowers' constitutional claims debatable or the district court's procedural rulings wrong or debatable. The court therefore denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 03-7571

    REGINALD W. FLOWERS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
    Judge. (CA-02-950-2)

    Submitted:

    February 13, 2004

    Decided:

    March 5, 2004

    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Reginald W. Flowers, Appellant Pro Se.


    Stephen R. McCullough,
    Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Reginald W. Flowers seeks to appeal the district courts
    order adopting the magistrate judges recommendation and denying
    relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000).

    An

    appeal may not be taken from the final order in a 2254 proceeding
    unless

    circuit

    appealability.

    justice

    or

    judge

    issues

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1) (2000).

    certificate

    of

    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.

    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 Flowers has not made the requisite
    showing.

    Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

    dismiss the appeal. We further deny Flowerss motion to proceed in


    forma pauperis on 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 -

    You might also like