Jermaine Pickett v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7527 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7527 JERMAINE LORENZO PICKETT, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cv-00505-gec-mfu) Submitted: November 17, 2009 Decided: November 25, 2009 Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad Williamson, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 U.S.C. this would claims showing by the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. court is likewise debatable. 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 Pickett has not made the requisite showing. motion for appeal. legal before a certificate Accordingly, we deny Pickett s of appealability and dismiss the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and contentions the court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials 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.