Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06372/USCOURTS-ca4-08-06372-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aubrey Brian Edwards
Appellant
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-6372

AUBREY BRIAN EDWARDS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (2:07-cv-00330-RGD-TEM-1)

Submitted: July 31, 2008 Decided: August 8, 2008

Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Aubrey Brian Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell,

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 08-6372 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Aubrey Brian Edwards seeks to appeal the district court’s

order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

denying relief on 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 Edwards has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also deny Edwards’

motions for bail or release pending appeal and for transcripts at

government expense. 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: 08-6372 Doc: 13 Filed: 08/08/2008 Pg: 2 of 2