Samuel Whitehead v. Gene Johnson, No. 08-7991 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7991 SAMUEL WHITEHEAD, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-01193-CMH-TCB) Submitted: January 15, 2009 Before MOTZ and Circuit Judge. SHEDD, Circuit Decided: Judges, and January 23, 2009 HAMILTON, Senior Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Samuel Whitehead, Appellant Pro Se. Alice T. Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel Whitehead seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a appealability. substantial right. jurists See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of that district by of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is 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). have independently reviewed the record and Whitehead has not made the requisite showing. conclude that Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because the We facts and 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.