Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07226/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07226-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Warren N. Cephas
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7226

WARREN N. CEPHAS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, VA Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate

Judge. (3:08-cv-00731-MHL)

Submitted: February 11, 2010 Decided: February 19, 2010

Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Warren N. Cephas, Appellant Pro Se. Gregory William Franklin, 

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7226 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/19/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Warren N. Cephas seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition.*

 * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006), the parties 

consented to proceed before a magistrate judge.

 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 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. See 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 Cephas

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 

Appeal: 09-7226 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/19/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 09-7226 Doc: 15 Filed: 02/19/2010 Pg: 3 of 3