Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07455/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07455-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Gene Johnson
Appellee
Spencer Lamont Stacey
Appellant
B. Watson
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7455

SPENCER LAMONT STACEY, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

GENE JOHNSON, Director; B. WATSON, 

 Respondents - Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

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

Judge. (7:09-cv-00317-sgw-mfu) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Spencer Lamont Stacey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7455 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Spencer Lamont Stacey 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 Stacey 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: 09-7455 Doc: 15 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2