Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07532/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07532-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Kevin L. Neal
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7532

KEVIN L. NEAL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Virginia Department of 

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00458-LMB-TCB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010

Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kevin L. Neal, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-7532 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Kevin L. Neal, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 

(2006) petition without prejudice to his ability to file a 28 

U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on his claim regarding revocation 

of his parole. 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 Neal 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: 09-7532 Doc: 14 Filed: 04/08/2010 Pg: 2 of 2