Kevin Neal v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7532 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7532 KEVIN L. NEAL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of Virginia Department of Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:09-cv-00458-LMB-TCB) Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 8, 2010 Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kevin L. Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kevin L. Neal, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition without prejudice to his ability to file a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition on his claim regarding revocation of his parole. justice or The order is not appealable unless a circuit judge issues a certificate U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional 28 this by showing U.S.C. find the of the § 2253(c)(2) standard would claims appealability. 28 A certificate of appealability will substantial right. of that by assessment court is of (2006). demonstrating any district denial 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 Neal has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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.