Court Opinion

ID: 179169
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-11-12 18:45:35+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:47.576900
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 09-7880

JOHNIE NORMAN, JR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                Respondent – Appellee,

          and

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,

                Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Liam O’Grady, District
Judge. (1:09-cv-00131-LO-IDD)

Submitted:   October 12, 2010               Decided:   November 12, 2010

Before NIEMEYER and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnie Norman, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.        Virginia Bidwell Theisen,
Senior Assistant Attorney General,           Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                2
PER CURIAM:

            Johnie        Norman,     Jr.   seeks       to    appeal       the   district

court’s    order    denying      relief     on    his   28    U.S.C.     § 2254    (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                          See 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).                  When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating         that   reasonable       jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.               Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El    v.   Cockrell,        537    U.S.    322,   336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                           Slack,

529 U.S. at 484-85.             We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Norman has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.        We also deny Norman’s motions to appoint counsel,

to schedule oral argument, and to conduct en banc argument.                             We

dispense     with        oral   argument     because         the    facts    and    legal

                                            3
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                           DISMISSED

                                4