Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Joyner v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    5 views2 pages
    Kenneth Brian Joyner appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Joyner did not obtain a certificate of appealability required for appeals of habeas corpus proceedings. To obtain a certificate, one must make a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. However, the court independently reviewed the record and determined Joyner did not make the necessary showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Joyner's related motions.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2004-02-25 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 02-7309

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    Kenneth Brian Joyner appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Joyner did not obtain a certificate of appealability required for appeals of habeas corpus proceedings. To obtain a certificate, one must make a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. However, the court independently reviewed the record and determined Joyner did not make the necessary showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Joyner's related motions.

    Copyright:

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

    Joyner v. Angelone, 4th Cir. (2004)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    Kenneth Brian Joyner appealed the district court's denial of his habeas corpus petition. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal, as Joyner did not obtain a certificate of appealability required for appeals of habeas corpus proceedings. To obtain a certificate, one must make a substantial showing that constitutional rights were denied. However, the court independently reviewed the record and determined Joyner did not make the necessary showing. Therefore, the court dismissed the appeal and denied Joyner's related motions.

    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    UNPUBLISHED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. 02-7309

    KENNETH BRIAN JOYNER,


    Petitioner -

    Appellant,

    versus
    RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,
    Respondent - Appellee.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
    Judge. (CA-01-1189-AM)

    Submitted:

    December 19, 2003

    Decided:

    February 25, 2004

    Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Kenneth Brian Joyner, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey,


    III, 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:
    Kenneth Brian Joyner 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


    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)

    (2000).

    demonstrating

    that

    constitutional

    prisoner

    reasonable

    claims

    are

    satisfies

    jurists

    debatable

    and

    this

    would
    that

    28 U.S.C.
    standard

    find
    any

    that

    by
    his

    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 Joyner has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly,

    we

    deny

    Joyners

    motions

    for

    certificate

    of

    appealability, appointment of counsel and an extension of time to


    file unspecified pleadings, and we 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