Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07109/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07109-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jerry E. Davis
Appellant
Gene Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7109

JERRY E. DAVIS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District

Judge. (7:07-cv-00089-JCT)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jerry E. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7109 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/19/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Jerry E. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as untimely 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 Davis 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: 07-7109 Doc: 16 Filed: 12/19/2007 Pg: 2 of 2