Alberto Peake v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7129 (4th Cir. 2009)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7129 ALBERTO PEAKE, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the Virginia Department of Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00606-RBS-FBS) Submitted: October 20, 2009 Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Decided: NIEMEYER, October 26, 2009 Circuit Judge, and Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alberto Peake, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Alberto Peake seeks to appeal the district court s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and a subsequent order reconsideration. justice or denying judge issue absent constitutional prisoner issues a a certificate right. jurists constitutional his motion for 28 this would claims by of appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial satisfies reasonable on The orders are not appealable unless a circuit U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not relief showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is of a A that of the 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 Peake has not made the certificate dispense of with requisite showing. appealability oral argument and Accordingly, dismiss because the the we deny appeal. facts and a We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2
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.
