Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07077/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07077-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Earl Thomas
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7077 

EARL THOMAS, III,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior

District Judge. (1:06-cv-00631)

Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 29, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Earl Thomas, III, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7077 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Earl Thomas, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s

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). 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 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 a certificate of

appealability, deny 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

Appeal: 07-7077 Doc: 11 Filed: 11/29/2007 Pg: 2 of 2