Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08067/USCOURTS-ca4-09-08067-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Efren Isanan
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-8067

EFREN ISANAN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District 

Judge. (7:09-cv-00411-gec-mfu)

Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 26, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Efren Isanan, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 09-8067 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Efren Isanan seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely 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 Isanan has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability, deny Isanan’s motions for 

appointment of counsel and for release on his own recognizance,

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: 09-8067 Doc: 11 Filed: 02/26/2010 Pg: 2 of 2