Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07650/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07650-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jason Richard-Charles Clem
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7650

JASON RICHARD-CHARLES CLEM,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00015-sgw-mfu)

Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: April 7, 2010

Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jason Richard-Charles Clem, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: 09-7650 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/07/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Jason Richard-Charles Clem seeks to appeal the 

district court’s order 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. 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 Clem 

has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further

deny Clem’s motion for the appointment of counsel. 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: 09-7650 Doc: 19 Filed: 04/07/2010 Pg: 2 of 2