Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jones v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    1 views2 pages
    Rodney Jones, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Jones did not merit a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, an appellant must make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Jones did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-12-02 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 05-6617

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Rodney Jones, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Jones did not merit a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, an appellant must make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Jones did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    Copyright:

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

    Jones v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Rodney Jones, a Virginia inmate, appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Jones did not merit a certificate of appealability. To receive such a certificate, an appellant must make a substantial showing that his constitutional rights were denied. The Fourth Circuit independently reviewed the record and determined that Jones did not make this requisite showing. Therefore, the court denied the certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal without oral argument.

    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. 05-6617

    RODNEY BERNARD JONES,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
    Judge. (CA-04-510-2)

    Submitted:

    November 22, 2005

    Decided:

    December 2, 2005

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Rodney Bernard Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,


    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Rodney B. Jones, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order 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 habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or


    judge

    issues

    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


    the district courts assessment of his constitutional claims is
    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 Jones
    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 -

    You might also like