Howard Payne, Jr. v. Director, VA Dept of Correctio, No. 08-6682 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6682 HOWARD W. PAYNE, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. DIRECTOR, VA DEPT OF CORRECTIONS, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:07-cv-00152-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: October 14, 2008 Decided: October 17, 2008 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Howard W. Payne, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Howard W. Payne, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. appealable § 2254 unless (2000) circuit a petition. justice certificate of appealability. Reid v. Angelone, A certificate of 369 The or order judge is not issues a 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); F.3d 363, appealability will 369 not (4th Cir. issue 2004). absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard § 2253(c)(2) by (2000). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this 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). conclude that We have Payne independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny Payne s motion for appointment of counsel and an evidentiary hearing, 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 2 materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.