Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07259/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07259-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
David Ballard
Appellee
Joseph Eugene Howard
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7259

JOSEPH EUGENE HOWARD, 

 Petitioner – Appellant, 

 v. 

DAVID BALLARD, Warden, 

 Respondent – Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, 

Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:08-cv-00112-FPS-JSK) 

Submitted: January 7, 2010 Decided: January 15, 2010 

Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, 

Senior Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Joseph Eugene Howard, Appellant Pro Se. R. Christopher Smith, 

Charleston, West Virginia; Dawn Ellen Warfield, Deputy Attorney 

General, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7259 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/15/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Joseph Eugene Howard seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate 

judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) 

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that 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 Howard 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

Appeal: 09-7259 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/15/2010 Pg: 2 of 2