Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Jermaine Pickett v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 views3 pages
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pickett's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court of appeals determined that Pickett failed to make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court denied a certificate of appealability and dismissed the appeal.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2016-04-15 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 15-8016

    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 Pickett's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court of appeals determined that Pickett failed to make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court 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 views3 pages

    Jermaine Pickett v. Gene Johnson, 4th Cir. (2016)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Pickett's appeal of the district court's denial of his Rule 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition. The court of appeals determined that Pickett failed to make the requisite showing that reasonable jurists would find the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims debatable or wrong, as required to issue a certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, the court 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 3

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 15-8016

    JERMAINE LORENZO PICKETT,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    GENE JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
    District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
    District Judge. (7:08-cv-00505-GEC-mfu)

    Submitted:

    April 13, 2016

    Decided:

    April 15, 2016

    Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se.


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

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Jermaine
    courts

    Pickett

    denying

    his

    order

    Lorenzo

    seeks

    Fed.

    R.

    to

    appeal

    Civ.

    P.

    the

    60(b)

    district

    motion

    for

    reconsideration of the district courts order denying relief on


    his

    28

    U.S.C.

    appealable

    2254

    unless

    (2012)

    petition.

    circuit

    justice

    certificate of appealability.
    Reid

    v.

    Angelone,

    A certificate

    of

    369

    The
    or

    order

    judge

    is

    issues

    not
    a

    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012);

    F.3d

    363,

    appealability

    369

    will

    (4th

    not

    Cir.

    issue

    2004).

    absent

    substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.


    28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
    relief

    on

    the

    merits,

    When the district court denies

    prisoner

    satisfies

    this

    standard

    by

    demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district


    courts
    wrong.

    assessment

    of

    the

    constitutional

    claims

    debatable

    or

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller-

    El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

    When the district

    court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must


    demonstrate

    both

    that

    the

    dispositive

    procedural

    ruling

    is

    debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the


    denial of a constitutional right.

    Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

    We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that


    Pickett has not made the requisite showing.

    Accordingly, we

    deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.


    dispense

    with

    oral

    argument

    because
    2

    the

    facts

    and

    We

    legal

    contentions

    are

    adequately

    presented

    in

    the

    materials

    before

    this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

    DISMISSED

    You might also like