Lee Wilson, Jr. v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7431 (4th Cir. 2010)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7431 LEE O. WILSON, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Mr., Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:08-cv-00794-LMB-TRJ) Submitted: February 18, 2010 Decided: February 24, 2010 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lee O. Wilson, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Michael Parsons, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lee court s order petition. O. Wilson, denying Jr., relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. district § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue the 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 denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that any district of (2006). demonstrating 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 Wilson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Wilson s motions en hearing, and for for appointment oral argument of counsel, because the for facts an and banc 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.