Eric Hilton v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7165 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7165 ERIC LEHMON HILTON, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of the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. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00461-MSD-TEM) Submitted: January 14, 2010 Decided: January 26, 2010 Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eric Lehmon Hilton, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eric Hilton order court s Lehmon denying relief petition. seeks on to appeal the 28 U.S.C. § 2254 his (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue district absent constitutional prisoner a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that by of (2006). demonstrating any district denial assessment court is a A that of the debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 Hilton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Hilton s motion for appointment of counsel, 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 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.