Calvin Vines v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7850 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7850 CALVIN JERMAINE VINES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee.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-01224-LMB-JFA) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 2, 2010 Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Calvin Jermaine Vines, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Mikell Didlake, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Calvin court s order petition. Jermaine denying Vines relief seeks on to his 28 appeal U.S.C. (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent a constitutional prisoner district § 2254 or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue the A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this by U.S.C. find the of the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims showing by that (2006). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 court is likewise debatable. 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 Vines has not made the requisite showing. motion for appointment of counsel, appealability, and dismiss the appeal. Accordingly, we deny his deny a certificate of 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.