Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Thomas v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    9 views2 pages
    Earl Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, the court found that Thomas did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Thomas's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Thomas's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2008-08-08 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 08-6389

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Earl Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, the court found that Thomas did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Thomas's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Thomas's motion for 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
    9 views2 pages

    Thomas v. Johnson, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Earl Thomas appealed the district court's denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, finding that Thomas did not make the requisite showing to obtain a certificate of appealability, which is required to appeal the denial of a § 2254 petition. Specifically, the court found that Thomas did not demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of Thomas's constitutional claims debatable or wrong, or that any procedural rulings by the district court were debatable. The Fourth Circuit therefore denied Thomas's motion for 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. 08-6389

    EARL THOMAS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE M. JOHNSON,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
    (7:07-cv-00286-GEC-MFU).

    Submitted:

    July 31, 2008

    Decided:

    August 8, 2008

    Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Earl Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF


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

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Earl Thomas seeks to appeal the district courts order
    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).

    certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial


    showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

    2253(c)(2)

    demonstrating

    (2000).
    that

    prisoner

    reasonable

    satisfies

    jurists

    would

    this

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find

    that

    by
    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 Thomas has not
    made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we deny Thomas motion

    for a certificate of appealability, deny his motion for 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 -

    You might also like