Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07235/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07235-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene M. Johnson
Appellee
Gerald L. Whittington
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

 No. 07-7235 

GERALD L. WHITTINGTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of

Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:07-cv-00294-jlk)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald L. Whittington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7235 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/24/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Gerald L. Whittington 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 Whittington 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: 07-7235 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/24/2008 Pg: 2 of 2